It only takes $130M to dictate ALL @Polymarket results. How is it happening? 🧵👇👇 The @Polymarket voting results have been criticised for being prone to manipulation multiple times. This time, a $240M bet was blatantly reversed, leaving all correct bettors with nothing: on June 26, @ZelenskyyUa wore a suit during a meeting with Trump in The Hague. Yet, the final result was shockingly “No.” The manipulation was probably because of @Polymarket’s oracle, @UMAprotocol, whose major stakeholders refused to accept the loss and manipulated the voting outcome. @UMAprotocol, operating on a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism, determines results based solely on the choice of the largest stakers. Thus, major stakeholders can fully control the outcome. And due to UMA’s PoS slashing mechanism, smaller stakers, under pressure from exerted by major players, are forced to vote with them. Otherwise, if their votes don’t “align with the facts,” they face penalties. Can @eigenlayer's intersubjective staking help out this issue? In fact, UMA’s market cap is only ~$130M, meaning Polymarket’s bets, worth tens or hundreds of billions, rely entirely on this $130M PoS system. This is entirely disproportionate: controlling UMA can essentially dictate the result of @Polymarket, and more improtantly, @UMAprotocol's major stakeholders hold up to 95% of the tokens!