Share 
Gaming Edge’s TL;DR
- Polymarket is facing a new lawsuit from two traders who claim the prediction market changed its resolution criteria after bets were placed on whether Strategy would sell bitcoin by May 31.
- The complaint says the shift turned a market tied to a real-world event into a dispute over who controls payouts when the rules are tested.
Two Polymarket traders, William Wood and Thomas Bush, have sued the company over the resolution of a prediction market tied to Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, and its bitcoin holdings.
The market asked whether Strategy would sell any of its bitcoin by May 31. According to the complaint, Polymarket later added a requirement that the sale had to be publicly confirmed by that same deadline. Strategy then disclosed on June 1 that it had sold 32 bitcoin between May 26 and May 31, but the market was still resolved as “No.”
The lawsuit alleges that change came after users had already placed bets and caused losses on more than $6.5 million in outstanding contracts. One plaintiff said he lost more than $500,000. The source also says user willo_2 wagered $695,704 on “Yes” at 76 cents.
The complaint accuses Polymarket, CEO Shayne Coplan, and Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber of breach of contract, false advertising, unjust enrichment, and deceptive, unfair, and abusive acts.
Vast majority of traders voted ‘No’
The case lands on a core issue: whether a platform’s posted terms stay fixed once money is already in play. That makes this more than a crypto issue; it is a settlement-transparency fight with wider relevance for gambling-adjacent markets.
It also challenges the platform’s reliance on the UMA Optimistic Oracle process. According to Gaming America, 98% of votes supported a “No” resolution. The lawsuit argues that process means little if a platform can change the standard after trading has already occurred.
As quoted in the complaint:
“If Defendants can impose a confirmation-by-deadline requirement after the fact in a market this objective, then the advertised promise of a pre-defined, rules-based resolution is materially misleading.”
Another line from the complaint puts the allegation even more bluntly:
“A prediction market that will not honor a proven, unambiguous event does not seek truth; it controls payout.”
Similar markets have added ‘announce’
This dispute goes straight to market integrity. Prediction markets are built on the idea that outcomes will be settled by clear, pre-defined rules. The plaintiffs’ claim is that Polymarket changed the practical meaning of the question after money was already committed.
Gaming America notes that Polymarket still offers similar markets, now phrased around whether Strategy will “announce selling any bitcoin” by specified dates. That wording matters because it appears more closely tied to public disclosure, which is at the center of this lawsuit.
Several key details remain unclear, including what court the lawsuit was filed in, whether Polymarket has publicly responded, and the exact date the alleged rule change was made.
What is clear is that the case raises broader questions about how prediction market operators write, update, and enforce settlement rules. This is the kind of dispute that can shape confidence faster than any promotional launch or headline-grabbing market spike.
If the allegations gain traction, expect more attention on how platforms define objective outcomes, how oracle systems are used, and how much room operators have to interpret a market after trading is already underway.
Based on reporting by Mo Nuwwarah for Gaming America.
