Refund Proposer for Eth 1,600 market.
Proposer: Adam Sherman firstname.lastname@example.org
Proposal Summary I proposed the ETH 1,600 market correctly at the time of proposal, UMANS verified this, but since data disappears a correct proposal can also be disputed correctly, we should reward this bug find.
Precedent for proposing the market the way I did.
Two other markets had been proposed where Coingecko data did not match many people’s visions of consistent reality.
The market above is similar to the ETH 1,600 market. No Uman dispute occurred as all Polymarket participants agreed the resolution source did not show a candle under 98c. Based on the recent ruling, this surely should have been disputed. Umans, as we now know, are willing to change the rules and requirements of a market after the market is over if an Uman whale indicates they believe it is the right thing to do for another company’s ecosystem and smart contracts, regardless of precedent.
For instance, in the above market, market participants saw Tether fall below 98c. It is widely reported and verifiable that Tether fell below a dollar, we all agreed that we saw it, and the price traded almost 99c, but the candle didn’t appear on coingecko.
Coinmarketcap had it hitting 95c. Many MEV trades were executed buying tether below 96c. But Coingecko had no candle on it. We resolved that market no as the resolution source was the historical data in coingecko. It did not fall below 98c on that resolution source, so based on the ancillary data, “The primary resolution source for this market will be Coingecko’s 30min candlestick low prices, with “Sun Jul 31 2022, 00:00:00” as the last relevant candle used for the market: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/tether.”
I resolved this market to no. There was no dispute.
Final Result: Coingecko candle in resolution source > credible reporting
The next market which made me believe it would be acceptable to propose the Eth 1,600 market on Polymarket
Note the rules:
The primary resolution source for this market will be CoinGecko’s 30min candlestick high prices, with “Mon Aug 01 2022, 00:00:00” as the last relevant candle used for the market. The resolution source can be found here: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/polygon. Note, this 00:00:00 candle lists the opening price at 11:30:00 PM ET and the closing price at 12:00:00 AM ET.
Traders, myself included, saw Matic trade over 1$ on many exchanges. This is seen on the Coinmarketcap for historical data for the day. The candle never appeared on Coingecko. So despite losing lots of money in this market, I did not dispute the correct resolution to no. No other Uman did as well, they respected our resolution source it resolved no, despite credible reporting that Matic reached $1.00.
Final Result: Coingecko candle in resolution Source > credible reporting
- Every other crypto price market was resolved with data that would not be available in a dispute without question, which was verifiable for only 24 hours. Umans and Polymarket bettors had been fine with this for over a year. Usually the candles and credible reporting match and are equivalent
Final Result: Coingecko candle in resolution Source = credible reporting, despite data not being available in case of dispute
This is the only time a dispute was made in a Crypto market and we learned all these markets have been using a faulty resolution source that isn’t available for enough time for the dispute, the proposer of this market should get a refund, and UMA and Polymarket harden the oracle going forward.
Value Add Keeps Polymarket working with the UMA ecosystem longer, rewards proposers who consistently follows the ancillary data protocol to bring markets to UMA.
Total Budget Requested 0x10010799404496d92058473cdbc99E6D22e174AF I am requesting $4,020 USDC equivalent in UMA, at 2.36 UMA per USDC thats approximately 1704 UMA.
Team Adam Sherman
I’m hoping I’ll get answers to some of the questions here as well
Questions I have:
Is there any valid proposal I can make after the 12:00 candle with 1600.07 comes out other than propose yes?
Do you believe no was the correct proposal at the time, and it would not have been disputed?
Do you believe yes was the correct proposal, but it should be disputed and then turned to no even if archive.org was available?
Do you believe yes was the correct proposal, but it should be disputed because no one used archive.org?
Do you believe yes was the correct proposal and no was the correct dispute vote in search of truth and that the proposer should lose 4,000 every time here?
Do you believe no one should propose these markets as they’ve been fundamentally flawed and UMA has allowed 100’s to pass without doing the relevant checks?
This is the most important question.
What should I have done to avoid losing $4,000 proposing a market that had all the ancillary data laid out in the rules providing a clear answer of yes, with hundreds of resolved markets as precedent
Do you support moving forward with this proposal?