Polymarket Splits May and June on Strategy BTC Sale

TLDR

• Polymarket resolved the May contract as No and the June contract as Yes after Strategy disclosed its bitcoin sale on June 1.
• Strategy confirmed in an SEC filing that it sold 32 Bitcoin between May 26 and May 31.
• UMA token holders voted that the sale counted based on public disclosure timing rather than the transaction date.
• Four large No voters controlled nearly 7 million voting weight, outweighing the entire Yes side.
• Galaxy Research argued that the market should have resolved Yes for May based on the actual sales period.

A dispute on Polymarket closed with a split outcome after Strategy disclosed a recent bitcoin sale. The platform ruled No for the May contract and Yes for the June contract. The decision followed a vote by UMA token holders who resolved the market based on disclosure timing.

Polymarket Vote Hinges on Disclosure Date

Strategy filed a Form 8-K on June 1 stating it sold 32 Bitcoin between May 26 and May 31. Traders who bought Yes argued the sale occurred before the May 31 deadline. However, others argued the market required public confirmation before the cutoff.

Polymarket referred the dispute to UMA token holders who govern its oracle system. Those holders voted that the transaction counted when Strategy disclosed it publicly. As a result, the May contract resolved No while the June contract resolved Yes.

The largest No vote came from borntoolate.eth with 3.11 million voting weight. UMA contributor Kevin Chan cast 1.53 million voting weight for No. Several other wallets each cast more than 1 million voting weight on the same side.

Together, the four largest No voters controlled nearly 7 million voting weight. That total exceeded the entire Yes side by more than 25 times. Several wallets linked to Risk Labs also voted No alongside other UMA participants.

Galaxy Research Challenges Polymarket Outcome

Galaxy Research held exposure to the May contract and objected to the ruling. The firm stated that Strategy sold the Bitcoin before May 31. It argued that the resolution criteria should focus on the sale date.

“Strategy’s SEC-filed Form 8-K explicitly stated that Strategy sold between May 26–31,” Galaxy Research wrote on X. The firm added that “a plain reading of the resolution criteria would suggest that the market should have resolved to YES.” It therefore described the outcome as controversial.

The resolution criteria relied on when they *sold* not when it was announced. Strategy’s SEC-filed Form 8k explicitly stated that Strategy sold between May 26–31. A plain reading of the resolution criteria would suggest that the market should have resolved to YES, hence the…

— Galaxy Research (@glxyresearch) June 3, 2026

---

---

Polymarket’s June contract resolved Yes because Strategy disclosed the sale during June. The platform applied the same criteria across both monthly markets. Consequently, traders who bought Yes for May lost their wagers.

The vote results showed concentrated power among a small group of token holders. Four wallets carried more than 25 times the voting weight of the Yes side. Those wallets determined the outcome under UMA governance rules.

Strategy’s filing confirmed it sold 32 Bitcoin during the final week of May. However, the company released that information on June 1. That timing formed the basis for the Polymarket resolution.