Polymarket, after the contradicting resolution of the “Ukrainian Rare Earth Market’” prediction event, has announced plans with the UMA team to establish enhanced monitoring and evaluation systems to avoid such incidents again.
On Tuesday, Polymarket’s community users saw approximately $7 million wiped out from the event market after a large UMA holder allegedly manipulated the Oracle by using last-minute voting power.
Many users who participated in this market event have been expressing their anguish on social media with some even calling it a “fraud” or “scam”.
Addressing the issue on Discord, Polymarket team has denied the allegations of a “market failure” but have resolved to put in place a more defined and timely clarification system with the UMA team.
What is the ‘Ukraine Rare Earth’ Incident on Polymarket
The controversy which has broader implications for the emerging DeFi Prediction Markets, emerged last night on the potential Trump and Ukraine’s rare earth mineral deal.
The exact question involved: ‘Will Ukraine agree to the Trump Mineral deal before April?’ Since there was no official confirmation of such a deal, the market was widely expected to settle as ‘No’. However, in the final moments before settlement, whale—holding large amounts of UMA tokens—allegedly used their voting power to alter the outcome.
And now traders who had made “accurate predictions” based on the expected result have lost their money allegedly due to a “manipulation and not because of a mistake in their analysis,” argued a reddit user.
Notably, this year, Polymarket also faced a ban in Thailand.
Why is the UMA Oracle Under Fire After The Attack
Notably, UMA (Universal Marke Access) oracle which acts as a verification and security layer for Polymarket has come under fire for its role in the incident due to its centralized power mechanism.
UMA’s Optimistic Oracle is used by Polymarket to verify real-world events and settle prediction markets. It works by allowing anyone to propose an outcome, which is then open for disputes before being finalized.
Users are of the view that it has to be certainly held responsible as in this case too,UMA’s oracle was responsible for confirming whether Ukraine’s rare earth exports had increased as predicted.
UMA’s oracle, which relies on an optimistic approach where proposed outcomes are assumed correct unless disputed, became the point of failure. The short dispute window and high economic barrier to challenging false claims allowed the misinformation to pass through before legitimate fact-checking could occur.
Since UMA token is used for voting, a polymarket user on reddit alleged that someone sent million of UMA Tokens to the whales to tilt the result in favour of “yes”. In fact, a user was indeed seen casting 5 million tokens through three accounts, evidently playing a significant role in the outcome as he accounted for 25% of the total votes.
Users have been expressing anguish on how would an ordinary player compete against the large holders can who can change the outcome with a single click.
The outcome was decided by the UMA Vote
Strengthening Monitoring and Security
In response, Polymarket – which recently integrated on SOL – and UMA have committed to implementing several key improvements to prevent similar incidents in the future.
They include building up enhanced systems and monitoring layers to avoid the recurrence of such event. It has also sought suggestions from the users to submit their feedback on strengthening the security of its systems.
Certain things that Polymarket and UML can work on in near future include:
1. Additional Fact-checking Layers – Polymarket can integrate additional fact-checking layers before approving new markets. It can also work with independent verification entities to ensure the authenticity of information driving speculative predictions.
2. Stronger Oracle Verification Protocols – For UMA, it can consider a revamp of its oracle systems to introduce multi-source data aggregation. This will reduce its reliance on single data streams that could be manipulated.
3. Community-Based Reporting and Audits – Both platforms can introduce a decentralized reporting system that allows users to flag potentially misleading or manipulated market activity. Additionally, third-party audits can be conducted more frequently to assess market integrity.
4. Extended Dispute Windows – The time allowed for disputes can be increased, giving users more opportunity to flag manipulated or inaccurate data.
5. Community-Based Monitoring – A new system where users can flag suspicious oracle activity before claims are finalized can be given a thought about.
6. Stronger Economic Disincentives for Attackers – Last but not the least, UMA must explore ways to increase the cost of fraudulent data submissions – currently the penalty for an incorrect vote is only 0.05% – making it less risky and financially attractive for fraudsters to manipulate oracle outcomes.
Implications for the Markets
Nonetheless, this incident on Polymarket has highlighted the inherent vulnerabilities in decentralized oracles, especially in high-stakes financial markets.
While blockchain-based systems like UMA – which recently launched Uma Oval – aim to provide censorship-resistant and trustless data feeds, they must also ensure robust security measures against governance attacks.
Market participants and analysts will be closely watching the coming up and implementation of these new measures, as the outcome could set new standards for decentralized finance platforms dealing with real-world events.
The effectiveness of these reforms may determine whether decentralized prediction markets can balance transparency with security, ensuring they remain a viable and trustworthy alternative to traditional financial systems.
The post Polymarket and UMA to Strengthen Monitoring Systems After ‘Ukraine Rare Earth’ Incident appeared first on CoinGape.
