Polymarket is embroiled in a contentious dispute following MicroStrategy’s confirmation that it sold 32 Bitcoin within the set deadline, while the prediction platform declared the sale invalid due to its public announcement arriving after the cutoff date. Strategy Inc., previously known as MicroStrategy, revealed the transaction in an official SEC filing on June 1, marking its first Bitcoin sale since December 2022.
The sale covered a window from May 26 to May 31, 2026, with 32 BTC sold at an average price near $77,135 per coin, netting around $2.5 million allocated to preferred stock distributions. Although this represented a tiny fraction of MicroStrategy’s massive 843,706 BTC treasury, it carried significant symbolic weight because of founder Michael Saylor’s longstanding commitment to never selling the company’s Bitcoin holdings.
The dispute hinges on Polymarket’s market question: had MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin by May 31? According to Strategy’s SEC Form 8-K, the sale was concluded on May 31, well within the timeframe. However, Polymarket’s official resolution rejected the $85 million trade, citing that public confirmation only became available on June 1—outside the event’s deadline. The platform stated that no evidence from the company’s filings, on-chain data, or credible media reports confirmed a Bitcoin sale within the designated dates, disqualifying any confirmation beyond that period.
This decision sparked backlash from users who supported “Yes” on the sale occurring, arguing the market question referred to the timing of the actual sale rather than its announcement. Two separate “No” resolutions faced sharp opposition, prompting Polymarket to escalate the matter to a binding vote among holders of UMA tokens, the governance mechanism behind its oracle system. Voting results carry significant weight and are expected within four days.
Currently, the market heavily favors the “No” outcome, priced at 99.8 cents, though community dissatisfaction is mounting. Critics warn that an erroneous verdict would erode Polymarket’s credibility with serious traders and damage trust in the platform’s prediction accuracy.
The broader controversy also highlights concerns over Polymarket’s oracle design, which relies on UMA token holders to resolve disputes. An earlier Wall Street Journal report revealed that governance power is highly concentrated among a few large holders, raising questions about fairness and decentralization in decision-making. This structural issue adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing friction between users, market outcomes, and the platform’s dispute resolution framework.