>>60598481
>>60598481
>I'm not sure anyone's done anything procedurely wrong though
Then you don't know shit about fraud.
There were multiple instances of fraud. I will list a few off the top of my head.
1)The market didn't adhere to its own stated rules.
2) Polymarket fraudulently interpreted and applied the rules.
3)Polymarket fraudulently doctored the betting page.
4)Polymarket fraudulently misrepresented odds while allowing bets to be made for days during "review."
Fraud is simply intentional deception to gain an unfair advantage, in this case polymarket has done that in spades. I haven't even touched on uma conflicts.
But if it makes you feel better to think that you're safe 'cause you worked out some excuses in your head and think you can hide behind decentralized oracles and tech mumbo jumbo, that shit never works in criminal court.
Tech geeks always think they can hide but prosecutors don't give a single fuck about jargon
It's about to get very real for polymarket