Recent forecasts in the market regarding events in Venezuela have exposed a long-standing issue in the prediction market industry—prediction markets cannot handle the "fuzzy outcomes" of the real world.
Polymarket has withheld tens of millions of dollars in funds wagered, refusing to settle the event contract of "whether the US will invade Venezuela." The platform's core stance is: ➡️ The actions taken by the US against Venezuela do not meet the contract's clear definition of an "invasion."
According to the supplementary explanation written into the market, the contract would only be adjudicated if the US military "launched a military offensive aimed at controlling any part of Venezuelan territory."
Under this interpretative framework, although US special forces crossed borders, directly arrested the current Venezuelan head of state Nicolás Maduro, and subsequently the US president publicly declared to "lead" Venezuela's policy direction, these actions are still seen by Polymarket as non-occupational military security operations, not as a full-scale invasion aimed at establishing military occupation or substantial territorial control.
The platform believes that political statements, diplomatic terms or even regime changes, do not automatically trigger the "invasion" contract condition.
Based on this logic, Polymarket considers the current event at most as a high-intensity cross-border law enforcement or military intervention operation, rather than a semantic "invasion event." Therefore, before the contract's expiration date, this market contract should be considered as an outcome that has not yet occurred, with remaining uncertainties, thus the platform refuses to immediately settle the related bets.
🔴 Will objective semantics make prediction markets manipulable?
In the Venezuelan event, Polymarket's logic of not settling is based solely on one phrase: ➡️ Arresting a head of state does not equal invasion.
⚠️ The biggest issue here is whether prediction markets will elevate the precision of language to a level of authority higher than reality. In other words, it doesn't matter if something actually happened in reality, as long as it didn't happen "with the correct wording."
It's important to know that the real world never unfolds according to specific terms. "Invasion" is a broad term, not necessarily requiring the advancement of tanks, planting of flags, or formal declarations of war as prerequisites.
Special forces crossing borders, forcibly arresting a country's highest leader, and subsequently publicly declaring to take over the country's policy direction—in international politics, diplomatic practice, and in the perception of the vast majority of the public, this has already constituted a factual level of invasion.
In the semantic system defined by Polymarket, as long as the related actions do not touch the narrowest, most mechanistic military definitions in the contract, they can be considered as "not yet occurred." This also means that no matter how severe the political or military consequences have already been in reality, as long as they do not meet specific wording conditions, the event can be suspended, and funds can be frozen.
On the surface, the outcomes at Polymarket are not unilaterally adjudicated by the platform, but are completed through a community voting mechanism under the Web3 architecture.
However, in practice, the community does not directly judge "whether the event has already occurred," but chooses "outcomes" within the established contract framework: that is, only when Polymarket believes the event has occurred, can the UMA Optimistic Oracle mechanism vote on—"invasion established" or "no invasion."
At the current stage of the Venezuelan event, Polymarket does not consider the event triggered, and the market will not enter the "state requiring adjudication," nor has it reached the stage of community voting.
🔴 This Venezuelan event has shown that Polymarket holds the de facto final adjudication power.
When whether an event "occurs" depends on how the platform defines and describes it, prediction markets inevitably fall into a kind of "manipulative hegemony." Unlike the closed outcome systems faced by traditional gambling, in the traditional gambling industry, this is the most untouchable red line.
Refusing to settle means the collapse of credibility. And when "platform interpretative power" replaces "objective outcomes" as the key to victory, those with information advantages naturally possess a lot of arbitrage space, which is a direct impact on the overall credibility of the prediction market.
❔ If Polymarket's handling method is mistaken, it will directly shake the foundation of credibility in the prediction market. The Venezuelan event is likely to become a watershed in the entire prediction market industry.
If the industry defaults that vague events can be indefinitely suspended, and platform interpretation can override actual results, even with the platform holding the final semantic adjudication power, then the prediction market will ultimately degenerate into a fund-harvesting scheme wrapped in "blockchain decentralization."
—————
This is the only gambling industry knowledge channel on TG, aimed at elite executives in the gambling industry. Produced by "Global iGaming Leader - PASA." Deep content analyzing the past, present, and future of the gambling industry is published daily.
This content is exclusively created byhttps://t.me/gamblingdeep. If you like our content, feel free to share it.
Follow this channel to receive a free copy of "Gambling Outbound Strategy, from Strategy to Practice Guide" report, message @Pasarose_bot after following to claim.
More data reports: @pasa_research
Join the member group: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: www.pasa.news
