🏅 Top traders

proposed resolution: YES

——> open a dispute

Well, this was fun!

I'm with you, Susan!

@shankypanky They avoid issuing until dispute happens, at least with the past few contentious ones.

Well Polymarket has proposed a YES resolution, which now will likely be disputed.

@Joshua dispute filed

I made a market which just exactly mirrors the final polymarket resolution, for comparison:

Should be NO imo, but you can never know for sure with markets like this so don't bet your farm on it

@NielS Instructions unclear, bet the farm.

I feel like if the head of digital assets at the issuer VanEck (who's deadline is today) says this, then it's pretty much settled:

@ErikBjareholt Unfortunately for some people, he doesn’t decide how the contract resolves 😬

@Gen Happy to provide clarity by spending all my mana on NO.

Sorting Polymarket comments on likes as an indicator of popular opinion shows there's pretty much only one convincing interpretation.

@ErikBjareholt I just went down a lengthy rabbit hole reading about both forms, which turned out to be a bad idea because I could honestly see a viable argument for either at this point. my inclination is no; although it seems like the ETF is approved in principle with form 19b-4, it is just not available for the shares to be listed on the exchange until S-1 is accepted. is that your understanding as well?

@shankypanky I guess an interesting question would be, how often do they issue 19b-4 and not a S-1, where both are necessary?

@Gen sure I don't think it's a matter of not issuing S-1, it just seems like the submitted forms needed a number of changes. if both are required for any approval, why wouldn't they hold out until all are received with amendments?

notably they refer to 19b-4 as the aspect "requiring approval" and S-1 as "going effective" before trading can commence lol

I mean my initial bet was No and there's a strong case for "approved" meaning that it has all required sign offs for trading obviously. but I think there's also a case for "approved" meaning the ETF is approved in principle and then just the formalities need to be confirmed so people can access it on the exchange.

@shankypanky I agree with your assessment, but "approved in principle only awaiting S-1" implies not really approved in practice. Final approval after 19b-4 might be a foregone conclusion, but it's nonetheless not sufficient.

The market specifies SEC as the resolution source, and it's unlikely they will use loose language in this regard. If they approved 19b-4, but not the S-1, and said the equivalent of "ETH ETF approved" (and not more specific language indicating remaining steps), that'd be crazy.

But we'll see soon enough.

@ErikBjareholt yeah I'm in the same camp as you there as well (tbc I'm just exploring a little as devil's advocate for the sake of curiosity - and I could give it another angle but it's not that important). resolving to communication from the SEC means to a release that will likely say 19b-4 was approved, or "first step," etc? I do think news sites could call it approved but the SEC would be more granular.

@ErikBjareholt Agreed, hence they'll resolve to Yes

@ErikBjareholt remember you are betting on UMA's decision, not the correct outcome!

@jacksonpolack Incorrect, you are betting on Polymarket's decision.

@jacksonpolack You are correct. A bond has been posted that Yes is the correct outcome: https://oracle.uma.xyz/?project=Polymarket&transactionHash=0x0acf86d5bd83f19834bcb7cb366dcd4341c1a19fdce5f2d55526ee5a038906db&eventIndex=11

@ErikBjareholt Now that bond has been disputed.

@ErikBjareholt I proposed all 3 ETF markets. Polymarket said they will clarify at 7PM ET (32 minutes from now). Someone unaware must have disputed, and it was of course, re-proposed to Yes again afterwards.

Polymarket now makes decisions for contentious disputes, not UMA.

@aenews looks like we have ~1:45 on the clock for the Final Dispute stage.