Proposal to Improve UMA Resolution System: Penalize Misuse of P4 – “Too Early”
TL;DR:
The P4 – “Too Early” option is currently being abused to delay market resolution even when the conditions are clearly met. This behavior undermines trust in both UMA and Polymarket.
I propose implementing slashing penalties for P4 voters and disputers when strong evidence already supports a P1 or P2 resolution. This would realign incentives and discourage bad-faith delay tactics.
Problem Overview
Under the current UMA system, voters can select P4 – “Too Early” without facing any consequences — even when the outcome is obvious and evidence-backed.
Example:
Market: “Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?”
Once photo and video evidence from news media emerged clearly showing Zelenskyy in a suit well before July, a P2 – “Yes” proposal was submitted.
However, the losing side disputed it using P4 – “Too Early”, not because they had evidence for P1 – “No”, but simply to delay resolution.
This was possible because:
- P4 voters are not slashed, even when opposing a clearly correct proposal.
- Disputers using P4 face no penalty, even when evidence is overwhelming.
- Only the original proposer (even if correct) can lose their stake.
Why This Matters
This creates a harmful incentive structure where:
- The losing side can weaponize delay via P4.
- Truthful proposers are punished.
- The system becomes less reliable for traders, bettors, and arbitrageurs who depend on timely, accurate resolution.
Proposed Fix
Introduce a slashing mechanism for misuse of P4 – “Too Early” when there is clear, objective evidence that a P1 or P2 resolution was already valid at the time of the proposal.
Implementation Guidelines
- If a disputed proposal is later confirmed as correct, all P4 voters and the disputer share in a slashing penalty.
- UMA can define a threshold of “objective evidence” (e.g., timestamped media, major news sources, or other verifiable facts).
- Ambiguous cases would remain open to honest debate — but reckless or strategic misuse of P4 would be discouraged.
Benefits
- Prevents abuse of the “Too Early” option.
Protects valid proposers from unjust penalties.- Restores trust in UMA’s dispute resolution mechanism.
Encourages evidence-based voting, not delay-based strategy.
Looking forward to community feedback and discussion. Let’s strengthen UMA’s oracle system together. 