# Proposal: Penalize Bad-Faith P4 ‘Too Early’ Votes to Prevent Resolution Abuse

**URL:** <https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/proposal-penalize-bad-faith-p4-too-early-votes-to-prevent-resolution-abuse/2208>\
**Category:** Ideas Bank\
**Tags:** approved-for-review\
**Created:** [June 28, 2025, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/proposal-penalize-bad-faith-p4-too-early-votes-to-prevent-resolution-abuse/2208 "2025-06-28T00:05:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon3000](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.uma.xyz/anon3000/32/832_2.png) [@anon3000](https://discourse.uma.xyz/u/anon3000)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2025, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/proposal-penalize-bad-faith-p4-too-early-votes-to-prevent-resolution-abuse/2208/1 "2025-06-28T00:05:51Z")

</div>

## 🧠 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. 👊

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bennidaytime](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.uma.xyz/bennidaytime/32/816_2.png) [@bennidaytime](https://discourse.uma.xyz/u/bennidaytime)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2025, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/proposal-penalize-bad-faith-p4-too-early-votes-to-prevent-resolution-abuse/2208/3 "2025-06-28T00:50:25Z")

</div>

I mean no disrespect to the person who posted this proposal, but this proposal demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of the system, the user also stated it was made using ChatGPT, hence it is full of hallucinations and bad info.

I don’t want this message to discourage others from suggesting ways to improve the system, please do, but I encourage you to learn about the system, chat with the UMA team, and then write suggestions/proposals.

I would recommend this user research how disputes work further, and come back to this idea. For the meantime, the proposal doesn’t make sense, and is not something that should or even could be implemented.

By default I am against this proposal.