Polymarket Under Scrutiny for $7M Trump-Ukraine Deal Bet

Polymarket, the world’s biggest decentralised prediction market, is facing intense scrutiny after a high-stakes political bet raised concerns over governance manipulation.

The controversy centers on a market predicting whether US President Donald Trump would secure a rare earth mineral deal with Ukraine by April 2025.

Despite platform rules requiring an official confirmation from US and Ukrainian governments, the market resolved as “Yes”—despite no formal agreement—fuelling accusations of manipulation.

A user wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter):

“Polymarket has scammed its users once more.”

A key issue is the role of UMA token whales, who allegedly exploited their voting power to influence the outcome.

One whale reportedly cast 5 million votes across multiple accounts, accounting for 25% of the total vote, effectively controlling the result.

In contrast, two previous markets with identical conditions but significantly lower betting volumes—$91,860 and $360,976—were resolved as “No.”

This discrepancy suggests a potential governance attack, where a major UMA Protocol stakeholder manipulated the oracle to profit from false results, according to crypto threat researcher Vladimir S.

He wrote in a 26 March X post:

“The tycoon cast 5 million tokens through three accounts, accounting for 25% of the total votes. Polymarket is committed to preventing this from happening again.”

Polymarket, which relies on UMA Protocol’s blockchain oracles to verify real-world events, saw over $7 million in trading volume before the market settled on 25 March.

Despite widespread objections from traders who bet “No,” the final resolution favored the whales, leaving many users with substantial losses.

This incident raises urgent questions about Polymarket’s governance integrity and the broader risks of decentralised betting platforms.

Not Everyone Agrees it’s a Coordinated Attack

Not everyone believes the market outcome was a deliberate attack.

A pseudonymous Polymarket user, Tenadome, argues that the resolution stemmed from negligence rather than coordinated manipulation.

According to Tenadome, at 11:58pm UTC on Sunday—just two minutes before the pledge period ended—Polymarket issued an update stating it was too early to resolve the market, as a definitive "Yes" outcome had not yet been confirmed.

Despite this, UMA whales proceeded with a "Yes" vote, likely to avoid penalties for incorrect pledges.

They could have chosen to abstain and roll the vote forward but opted not to.

Following the resolution, some traders expected Polymarket to invoke its emergency pause function.

However, two minutes before the reveal period ended on Monday at 11:58pm UTC, Polymarket reaffirmed that the market would settle based solely on UMA’s vote.

Tenadome contends that there was no orchestrated effort to manipulate the oracle—just the same UMA whales who regularly vote in disputes, many of whom are either part of the UMA team or unaffiliated with Polymarket trading.

Ultimately, the user blames Polymarket for its last-minute clarification, arguing that it should have provided guidance much earlier in the commit period or not at all.

The failure to act sooner, he suggests, was due to staffing shortages and a lack of attention over the weekend.

Tenadome added:

“The voters that decided this outcome are the same UMA whales who vote in every dispute, who (1) are largely affiliated with/on the UMA team and (2) do not trade on Polymarket, and they just chose to ignore the clarification to get their rewards and avoid being slashed.”

Polymarket Says No to Refunds Being Issued

Polymarket’s response has done little to ease user concerns.

In an official Discord announcement, the team acknowledged the controversy but maintained that the incident did not constitute a market failure, leaving them unable to issue refunds.

The statement read:

“This is an unprecedented situation, and we have been in war rooms all day internally and with the UMA team to make sure this won’t happen again. This is not a part of the future we want to build: we will build up systems, monitoring, and more to make sure this doesn’t repeat itself.”

Polymarket moderator Tanner said:

“We are aware of the situation regarding the Ukraine Rare Earth Market. This market resolved against the expectations of our users and our clarification.”

Tanner added:

“Unfortunately, because this wasn’t a market failure, we are not able to issue refunds.”

To prevent similar issues in the future, Polymarket pledged to develop new monitoring systems, calling the event an “unprecedented situation.”

However, whether these measures will restore trust remains to be seen.

Is There Even a Trump-Ukraine Deal?

According to Reuters, Trump stated on 25 March that he expected the US and Ukraine to reach a revenue-sharing deal “soon.”

However, neither government officially confirmed an agreement.

Many traders argue that speculation about a potential deal does not equate to a finalised agreement, raising further doubts about the market’s resolution.

One frustrated user on Polymarket wrote:

“This is a big joke. Zelensky just announced they are looking into a bigger deal, which means there was no deal before. Wow, a real scam.”

As scrutiny grows, questions remain: Can Polymarket uphold trust in its prediction markets, or will controversies like this define its future?