Examines a $10 million Polymarket dispute over whether events in Venezuela constitute an 'invasion,' exposing how semantic ambiguity in market resolution criteria can create massive financial consequences. Raises fundamental questions about who controls truth determination when contract language is open to interpretation.

Post-mortem of Polymarket's US government shutdown market, where the market resolved 'Yes' to a shutdown that never happened. Traces the failure to structural issues in oracle design: token holders who can trade and vote, retroactive rule changes, and a corruption cost lower than the value at stake.

Critical analysis of prediction market reliability during the 2024 US election. Documents how four coordinated accounts controlled 23% of Polymarket's open interest, 41% of volume appeared to be wash trading, and argues current platforms lack the structural conditions for reliable forecasting.

Speculates on how Polymarket's 2024 presidential election market could be manipulated through its oracle system. Argues that Fox News was chosen as an oracle despite being unlikely to call the election for a non-Trump candidate, and that UMA token holders could sway disputed resolution votes given UMA's small market cap.

Case study of Polymarket's Venezuelan election market, where UMA token-holders overrode the platform's own resolution rules to declare opposition candidate Gonzalez the winner despite official results. Highlights conflicts of interest when oracle voters can also bet on outcomes.