Polymarket splits Strategy bitcoin contracts on May vs. June disclosure timing
In brief
- Strategy disclosed a 32 bitcoin sale on June 1 that occurred May 26–31
- UMA voters ruled May contract No because disclosure came in June
- June contract resolved Yes since transaction became public in June
- Galaxy Research disputed the May contract resolution on X
The split resolution
Strategy disclosed in a June 1 filing that it had sold 32 bitcoin between May 26 and May 31. UMA token holders ultimately ruled against bettors who wagered the sale would occur by May 31. The May contract resolved No because the transaction was not publicly disclosed until June 1 and therefore should not count toward a May 31 cutoff. The June contract, meanwhile, resolved Yes because the transaction became public during June.
The voting breakdown
The No side dominated with overwhelming voting weight. Together, the four largest No voters controlled nearly 7 million voting weight, more than 25 times the entire Yes side. The biggest vote came from borntoolate.eth, which cast 3.11 million voting weight for No. Other major No votes included UMA contributor Kevin Chan with 1.53 million voting weight.
This disparity left little room for dissent.
Galaxy Research's pushback
Galaxy Research, which had significant exposure to the May contract, pushed back sharply on X. The firm stressed that Strategy explicitly sold the 32 bitcoin between May 26 and May 31, and that the market's resolution criteria should focus on when the sale occurred, not when it was publicly announced.
"Strategy's SEC-filed Form 8k explicitly stated that Strategy sold between May 26–31. A plain reading of the resolution criteria would suggest that the market should have resolved to YES, hence the controversy." — Galaxy Research
The dispute underscores a recurring tension on Polymarket: whether event-based markets should resolve on objective facts (the transaction date) or on public information (the disclosure date). In this case, UMA's oracle mechanism sided with disclosure timing, setting a precedent for how future similar disputes might be handled.
