ATC

@FBI @TheJusticeDept @SECGov @CFTC We would like to draw your attention to #Polymarket, which has caused thousands of traders to lose millions of dollars due to what we believe is coordinated manipulation of the @Polymarket dispute resolution system by #UMA token holders. We sent a request to @Polymarket support. We received no response or intervention. However, we know they are aware of the situation. The market in question concerns the question of whether the United States and Iran reached a permanent peace deal by June 15, 2026 (polymarket.com/event/us-x-ir…). Over $400 million was wagered on this single market. The terms of the contract were clear: a qualifying agreement had to “explicitly indicate that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease.” Temporary ceasefires and interim agreements, by the market’s own rules, were explicitly excluded. On June 14, President Trump announced an agreement - but he himself called it an “interim agreement” and a “temporary measure.” (wionews.com/world/inside-the…); (apnews.com/newsletter/mornin…). His own words confirmed it was NOT a permanent peace deal. As of today, there is still no signed permanent peace treaty between the United States and Iran. Today, June 17, Trump also stated for the second time that this is not yet final and the deal is still to come. This is confirmed by @Reuters and @guardian (theguardian.com/world/live/2…); (reuters.com/world/middle-eas…) @axios Despite this, UMA token holders have voted overwhelmingly to resolve the market as “YES.” They are effectively ruling that an interim, temporary agreement qualifies as a “permanent peace deal” under the contract, directly contradicting the market’s own rules. The UMA voting system is not a fair and impartial arbitration process. Investigations by @Bloomberg, @WSJ, @CryptoTimes_io (bloomberg.com/news/articles/…); (thedefiant.io/news/markets/u…) and others have revealed that: Nine wallets control roughly half of all UMA voting power on Polymarket disputes. A handful of anonymous individuals hold the power to decide the outcome of billions of dollars in contracts. At least 60% of active UMA voters can be linked to live Polymarket trading accounts - meaning they are not neutral arbiters, but active participants in the very markets they are judging. They are referees who also bet on the game. Roughly one in five disputes involves a voter with a direct financial stake in the contract they are ruling on. They are not impartial; they are incentivized to rule in favor of their own positions. "UMA rocks", a platform that allows UMA holders to pool voting power, was forced to remove a committee member in April 2026 over allegations of market manipulation. The system is so compromised that even its own participants have been caught engaging in manipulative conduct. A Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) investigation found that in most disputed Polymarket markets, over half of the votes come from the ten largest wallets. Polymarket’s disputes are not decided by a fair and decentralized community - they are decided by a handful of anonymous whales who have the power to override the rules and the facts. This is not a decentralized arbitration system. This is a rigged game. The $400 million Iran peace market is just the latest and perhaps the largest - example of a structural failure that has been building for years. Since January 2026, over 1,150 disputed orders on Polymarket have been decided by this broken UMA voting system. Each dispute is a potential opportunity for manipulation. We are asking you to investigate this matter thoroughly. The UMA voters who decided to ignore the clear terms of this market have effectively stolen from thousands of traders who played by the rules. They have taken money that does not belong to them. This is not a semantic disagreement - this is fraud. We also call on you to investigate the broader conflict of interest embedded in Polymarket’s dispute resolution structure. How is it legal for individuals with direct financial stakes in a market to vote on that same market’s outcome? How is it legal for a handful of anonymous wallets to hold the power to decide the fate of $400 million contracts? How is it possible that Polymarket’s own administration claims to have no authority to intervene when a dispute system is being used to defraud its users? We ask that the appropriate agencies: 1) Investigate the UMA token holders who voted to resolve the Iran peace market as “YES” for potential fraud and market manipulation. 2) Investigate Polymarket dispute resolution system for structural conflicts of interest and potential violations of securities and commodities laws. 3) Investigate whether the concentration of UMA voting power in a small number of wallets constitutes a violation of anti-manipulation rules. 4) Take action to ensure that the $400 million tied to this market is distributed to the traders who followed the rules and bet on “NO” the outcome that the contract’s own terms dictate. The rules were clear. The facts were clear. The only thing that was not clear was the integrity of the system that was supposed to enforce those rules. Sincerely. Some media outlets are already covering the situation in this market: 1. @Bloomberg (bloomberg.com/news/articles/…) 2. @thenextweb (thenextweb.com/news/polymark…) #cryptoscam @FoxNews @CNN @CNNBusiness @crypto @markets @nytimes @nytimesbusiness @nytimestech @washingtonpost @politico @CoinDesk @TheBlockCo @davidzmorris @zhusu @matt_levine @DeItaone @PolymarketMoney @PolymarketTrade @PolymarketStory @PolymarketSport @SenWarren @RepMaxineWaters @SenateBanking @zachxbt @Web3Marmot @balajis @ercwl @CryptoGorilla @unusual_whales @MattWallace888 @NewsWire_US