Hacker News Reader

I think its a bit more complicated than this. Disputed outcomes are decided by votes from UMA token holders, which are anonymously owned. I remember reading a theory (with evidence, can't find the article now) that the venn diagram between Polymarket owners/stakeholders and UMA whales is close to a circle.

View on HN

I am surprised to learn this.

Can you influence outcomes on Polymarket by purchasing enough UMA tokens?

Why would people accept this? Especially if ownership is anonymous and could overlap with market actors?

People will accept it as long as it mostly operates in an expected manner and they get their payout.

People are very good at convincing themselves that because something has not happened, therefore it will not.

When UMA is eventually abused to make a lot of money, then perhaps things will change.

For the same people accept Tether's claims of solvency even though they refuse audits and obviously lie about ownership of various assets. For the same reason people ignore wash trading. For the same reason people continue using Sam-coins even after FTX's implosion.

Because A) they're not paying attention, B) they're in denial and C) because they think they can profit in the short term before it collapses, or that the odds are in their favor to profit despite the risks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com