A column by a group of investors holding Yes shares in the “US x Iran ceasefire extended by April 22 2026” market on Polymarket:
We are not journalists or activists. We are a group of investors. A week ago we did what anyone in our position would do if they read the rules carefully: we bought Yes shares in a market that the platform was nearly leaving for more than a cent.
Today our positions are worth a lot of money. Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. If Polymarket follows its rules we could get millions of dollars. For one of us the potential payout is than $20 million.. If the platform rules against the obvious facts we lose everything.
We did not guess. We read the rules. The rules of the “US x Iran ceasefire extended by April 22 2026” market were written by Polymarket itself. We did not invent them. Polymarket wrote: the market resolves Yes if there is confirmation from both sides or “an overwhelming consensus of media reporting”.
On April 21 2026 four things happened:
- – Donald Trump posted a statement on the ceasefire extension on Truth Social.
- – Pakistan’s Prime Minister, who is officially recognized by Irans Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the “principal mediator” publicly confirmed the agreement.
- – The UN Secretary-General published a Note to Correspondents welcoming the extension.
- – Reuters, AP, Axios, Al Jazeera BBC, WSJ and CNBC reported the extension unanimously.
We read these news on the day everyone else did. We looked at the market. We saw Yes shares at 0.1 cents.. We thought: either we do not understand something or the market is offering an obvious opportunity.
We re-read the rules. We re-read them again.. We bought Yes shares.
When the UN issues a Note to Correspondents it means something. The UN is not a newspaper. The Secretary-General does not pass along rumors. When the Secretariat publishes a Note to Correspondents that welcomes the extension of a ceasefire between two countries it means the Secretariat has already received official diplomatic notes from both parties.
If Polymarket rules No the platform is effectively saying the UN was wrong or fabricated the document.
We are prepared to be cheated. We know UMA voting is not a court and token holders may have their interests. We assume Polymarket has motives not to pay out tens of millions of dollars to a side that bought at fractions of a cent.
That is why we are not staying quiet. We are approaching the media preparing documentation coordinating with everyone who has expertise in cryptocurrency, prediction markets and the UMA Protocol.
We are prepared for litigation. We have the resources, expertise and motivation to take this story to its conclusion.
We do not hide what we write as a party. We have money on the line.. That is exactly why we spent time studying the rules. And exactly why we are more confident in our position than those who priced Yes at 0.3% without reading the UN Note to Correspondents.
This is bigger than us.
If UMA votes No in a case where the US president’s statement, an UN document and global media consensus confirm the opposite. The prediction markets industry gets something irreversible. No institutional investor will take prediction markets seriously as an asset class. Every resolution becomes subject to reputational pressure.
What we are asking is simple. From Polymarket we ask: apply your rules. From UMA holders we ask: vote on the facts. From the media we ask: track this story.
We have no hidden agenda. We have positions. Bought under available rules in a publicly available market.. We believe the rules should mean what they say.
