Polymarket Users Dispute Outcome of $13.2M Ether ETF Approval Bet
Summary:
This article is about a dispute among Polymarket users who speculated on the approval of spot Ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs). A $13.2 million betting pool was set on an Ether ETF being approved by May 31. After the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved multiple 19b-4 filings for Ether ETFs, Polymarket declared a "Yes" result, causing an uproar among those who bet "No". The "No" group claims the approval is incomplete without Form S-1, which the SEC has yet to approve. The issue has sparked a debate regarding the interpretation of 'approval' and has not been commented on by the firms involved.
Individuals who speculated wrongly on the endorsement of spot Ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on Polymarket are challenging the decentralized prediction market platform, contending the wagering pool is yet to be closed. The blockchain-based market witnessed over $13.2 million in bets regarding the approval of an Ether ETF by the end of May, but the term "approval" wasn't clearly defined. The marketplace confirmed a "Yes" decision on May 23 after the Securities and Exchange Commission gave the nod to the 19b-4 filings for various Ether ETFs. Though the outcome was momentarily questioned according to Polymarket's records, it was ultimately settled as a "Yes"
However, the "No" voters are contesting this resolution, asserting that for a United States ETF to be viable for exchange trading, it needs both an approved 19b-4 filing and Form S-1 and without Form S-1, the result should not be "Yes". Experts suggest that the SEC authorization of the S-1s might require a few more months, something the "No" bettors may have considered in their wager. A notable "No" bettor, who recently changed their username to "RevengeTour19B4", highlighted a post by Matthew Sigel, the head of digital assets research at VanEck, stating that ETFs aren't technically "approved" until both Form S-1 and 19b-4 filings have been sanctioned by the SEC.
The disgruntled players also referred to an Unchained podcast where Matt Hougan, investment chief at Bitwise, explained that ETFs approval is a highly complex process that requires the clearance of both 19b-4 and S-1 forms. Similarly, those on the winning "Yes" side asserted that the market only indicated "approval", not that ETFs must begin trading by May 31.
Others believe that the SEC's 19b-4 approvals should be recognized as ultimate authorization, arguing that Form S-1 approvals are typically in line to follow. At the time of writing, Risk Labs, the firm behind UMA, a blockchain oracle platform that catered to information disputes on Polymarket, did not provide any comment on the issue. Similarly, Adventure One QSS Inc., Polymarket’s developing company, didn’t respond immediately when asked for a statement.
Published At
5/24/2024 6:21:28 AM
Disclaimer: Algoine does not endorse any content or product on this page. Readers should conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the asset, company, or any information in this article and assume full responsibility for their decisions. This article should not be considered as investment advice. Our news is prepared with AI support.
Do you suspect this content may be misleading, incomplete, or inappropriate in any way, requiring modification or removal?
We appreciate your report.