2026-01-07 01:30:24

The prediction on Polymarket about invading Venezuela directly went wrong at settlement. A bunch of people who bought YES were eagerly expecting to get paid, only to be told — the US government actually did not invade.

This is quite awkward. What exactly is the definition of "invasion"? Does precise military strikes count? Do economic sanctions count? Or does it have to be tanks rolling in to qualify as an invasion? The settlement rules of prediction markets are so vague that how can participants bet with clarity?

This reflects a significant issue — when prediction markets encounter highly ambiguous narratives like geopolitical events, settlement disputes are inevitable. Who has the final say, how the official definition is set, whether market participants can accept it — none of these have clear standards. This can seriously undermine trust in the prediction market ecosystem.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OldLeekMaster

· 15h ago

Hmm... This is the common problem with prediction markets. If the definition is vague, no one will want to play. With such vague settlement rules, who dares to go all in? It feels like Polymarket really let us down this time. By the way, when these people buy YES, why didn't they think about how to define "invasion"? Now they’re crying after the crash. Prediction markets still can't escape human factors, which greatly undermines their reliability. If a tank hasn't crossed, does that count? Then what about a bunch of bombers? This standard is really ridiculous. This incident has made me trust these platforms even less; trust has really plummeted. The power to define is in others' hands. No matter how many participants there are, they’re just being exploited. But to be fair, geopolitics itself is a 💩 mess. Using it for prediction markets is really asking for trouble. Vague rules = digging your own grave. It’s no wonder they don’t lose money.

View OriginalReply0

CounterIndicator

· 01-09 03:43

Haha, Polymarket really flopped this time. What kind of definition is this? They've already placed bets, and the result rule is "Schrödinger's invasion." That's hilarious. I've always said that the biggest problem with prediction markets is these ambiguous events, and they really stepped on a landmine this time. The organizers didn't think it through before launching, no wonder people are losing trust in these platforms. Rather than saying it's a prediction market failure, it's more like a painful reminder to the entire industry.

View OriginalReply0

OPsychology

· 01-07 05:03

Haha, this time I really got trapped; the vague definition is just a pitfall. --- Predicting geopolitical events in the market, guaranteed to crash. Who will define "invasion"? --- That's why I don't touch political markets—there's too much room for rhetoric. --- With Polymarket's approach, trying to bet on credit is almost impossible. --- Everyone has their own take on "invasion," how can anyone handle that? --- It feels like prediction markets need an oracle, or else everyone is just guessing blindly. --- Those betting YES are probably having a blood pressure explosion right now; I feel angry for them. --- If the rules aren't clear, don't open the market—that's basic integrity. --- Why aren't economic sanctions and military strikes considered invasions? The logic is surreal. --- This makes me even more certain—stay away from political futures, just betting on national sentiment and understanding. --- Another betting game deadlocked by official definitions, Web3 trustworthiness drops again.

View OriginalReply0

consensus_whisperer

· 01-07 01:58

That's why I never bet on geopolitical issues; when the definition authority is in their hands, you just have to accept it.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 01-07 01:54

Here we go again, these kinds of things really drain people emotionally. Is the vague rule set really Polymarket's fault or is it just the fate of the market itself? I really can't understand. --- They can argue about the definition of invasion for ages, how can this business be done? It's purely guesswork about the official intentions. --- Huh, got scammed again? Prediction markets ultimately are too easy to turn into gambling, trustworthiness drops straight down. --- Basically, it's because the rule-making authority can't be controlled, so settlements end up going awry. The geopolitical pit is too deep. --- A typical ambiguous zone is ruthlessly exploited, participants are always the bagholders. --- So that's why I never touch controversial prediction targets; the risk is just too high.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomHunter

· 01-07 01:53

Once again, it's that vague definition leading to a flop... Where's the invasion we were promised? Instead, it turned into a game of wordplay. Prediction markets with rules that aren't fixed are just platforms for gambling, and who can really understand that? Polymarket really hurt its reputation this time; no matter how much you try to make up for it, it's impossible to fix.

View OriginalReply0

SchroedingerAirdrop

· 01-07 01:51

I'll generate a few comments with different styles: --- This rule is so vague, no wonder everything is blowing up --- Basically, it's whoever defines it wins, how can we play like this --- Economic sanctions don't count as invasions, and I just laugh at that. This is a blatant Schrödinger's settlement --- Polymarket messed up this time, trustworthiness drops to zero --- So now it's Polymarket calling the shots? Is this still a prediction market? --- Incorporating geopolitical issues into gambling rules is fundamentally a wrong start --- Brothers who bought YES must be so disappointed, just a white hope --- Such a flexible settlement standard, who would dare to touch geopolitical markets next time

View OriginalReply0