UMA | UMA
$1.23
Coin info
Rank
Market Cap
Volume (24h)
Circulating Supply
Total Supply
Do you think the price will rise or fall?
Rise 40%
Fall 60%
Price perfomance
$0.00
0%
$∞
Range 24H
$∞
Depth of Market
Depth +2%
Depth -2%
$1.23
Rise 40%
Fall 60%
Rank #17
$16.91
+0.76%
Rank #37
$318.06
-3.58%
Rank #94
$0.9390
+13.73%
Rank #188
$49.62
-1.88%
Rank #290
$0.6753
-0.85%
Rank #291
$0.2696
-1.71%
Rank #319
$5,896.14
-1.46%
Rank #385
$0.7511
-0.95%
Rank #469
$0.08938
+1.41%
Rank #600
$0.4398
-4.56%
Rank #607
$1.21
+0.54%
Rank #25217
$1,859.35
-3.9%
#464
$109,283,337
$14,997,178
88,279,040.81
125,436,030.49
UMA is a decentralized financial contracts platform built to enable Universal Market Access. UMA builds infrastructure for “priceless” financial contracts: DeFi contracts that minimize oracle usage, avoiding many of the security and scalability issues that have plagued decentralized finance. The first contracts built with UMA are priceless synthetic tokens: ERC20 tokens that can track anything while minimizing the need for on-chain price data. The UMA project token powers the system in two ways: Governance: UMA token holders govern what types of contracts can access the system, which asset types are supported, and key system parameters and upgrades. Price requests: the priceless methodology minimizes on-chain price requests but doesn’t eliminate them — when contract interactions are disputed, UMA token holders fulfill price requests via the Data Verification Mechanism, or DVM. UMA tokens enable the holder to participate in community governance and resolve contract disputes through the DVM. The tokens are not an investment opportunity.
9 Jul 2025, 11:13
Polymarket is locked in another controversy over the interpretation of UMA, a decentralized oracle that utilizes token holder voting to resolve prediction markets. UMA – a protocol which is a separate entity from Polymarket – is no stranger to controversy, having ruled before with interpretations that even Polymarket doesn't agree with . This time, it’s about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attire: Polymarket bettors were asked if the typically casual leader would appear in a suit before July. On June 25, Zelenskyy wore an outfit described by the BBC , New York Post , and others as a suit. Yet the market is set to resolve “No,” sparking outrage from those set to lose their bets on the $200 million market. "UMA's voting incentives encourage people to vote with the perceived majority to avoid penalties, not based on factual correctness," RememberAmalek said. "This creates conditions ripe for manipulation." RememberAmalek is a prominent Polymarket bettor who earned $300,000 predicting Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York's mayoral primary by identifying critical flaws in polling data and betting against conventional wisdom. Between his multiple accounts , he's earned well over $1 million in wins. In UMA's dispute resolution system, voters stake tokens to participate in deciding market outcomes. Those who vote against the final consensus face penalties known as "slashing," where a portion of their staked tokens is confiscated or reduced. This economic penalty structure motivates voters to align their choices with the anticipated majority opinion, even when it contradicts their genuine interpretation of factual correctness. "One person holding millions of tokens and deciding multi-million dollar outcomes is not decentralization," he said, referring to UMA's largest whales that hold a controlling share of tokens and sometimes slash those that vote against them. On-chain data parsed by IntotheBlock shows that 95% of UMA tokens are held by large holders . For the sake of comparison, just over half of ETH tokens are held by large holders. "It undermines the entire point of using prediction markets to find truth," the trader continued. Reflecting on his own strategies, RememberAmalek admitted openly to betting on UMA resolutions rather than the underlying facts of markets. "Polymarket and UMA need an immediate rethink of their resolution mechanism," he said. "Every major dispute damages user trust, particularly smaller bettors who feel scammed and leave." And what's the solution in his eyes? Perhaps ironically, centralization. But done professionally and transparently. By Polymarket itself, not some outside protocol. Because right now, "this isn't decentralized," he concludes. Read more: Polymarket Embroiled in $160M Controversy Over Whether Zelenskyy Wore a Suit at NATO
9 Jul 2025, 08:00
The Polymarket community raised the alarm on flawed oracle decisions. Voting on UMA protocol swayed a prediction market with over $200M at stake. Polymarket is facing backlash after the resolution of one prediction pair showed unfairness and a possible governance attack from UMA holders. The prediction pair in question was targeting current news, where issues may be contentious to resolve. In this case, Polymarket opened a token pair for the question ‘Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?’. The market turned highly volatile, but the weight of ‘No’ votes expanded suspiciously in June. The Polymarket platform faces the credibility issue just as open interest is on the rise. For the past month, open interest on prediction pairs increased from $88M to over $138M. Polymarket also retains a baseline of around 20K daily active traders. Following the announcement of a partnership with X , Polymarket came to be seen as an arbiter of current news and a tool to decide on truth. The Zelenskyy suit debacle may undermine that authority. Current news were among the most active prediction markets, on par or surpassing sports events. Yet current news are also the issue most open to interpretation and volatile trading. Polymarket prediction pair shifts over $200M to improbable vote What the Polymarket community missed was that Zelenskyy’s sartorial choice would not be confirmed by common sense or even suit experts, but by voting through UMA tokens. The pair has since been removed, but the discussion continues on social media. The prediction platform partnered with UMA in February, allowing token holders to use their stake and vote on market resolution. However, soon after that, Polymarket suffered its first governance attack . This time around, Polymarket faced stakes at over $200M, raising suspicions that UMA was used to hijack the decision process and extract funds for whales. UMA whales staked $25M to dispute the vote The prediction pair has now been removed from Polymarket as resolved. However, analysis of the voting shows the market almost resolved to ‘Yes’, which was the position of the wider community. Media also reported Zelenskyy wore a suit, with more evidence emerging that the garment was not traditional, but could be called a suit. Even the designer admitted the garment was more likely to be considered a suit, as the opinion on ‘Yes’ initially prevailed. The bigger problem was the ability to propose an alternative outcome to betting pairs, while making a relatively small stake. The other big problem is that most of the supply of UMA tokens is controlled by whales, allowing them to sway contested decisions. In theory, UMA whales could sway multiple markets with an illogical outcome. However, most of the governance attacks pick prediction pairs with enough gray zone and plausible deniability. UMA whales staked 23M tokens for this issue, valued at $25M. The staked assets grant an additional 21% annualised yield. Just four whales control over 40% of the UMA supply, while the biggest whale holds 25% of the token supply. However, Uma Protocol only slashes a small part of the stake for malicious voting. Even when contested, an issue cannot escape the influence of UMA whales. The Polymarket community is now calling for a revision of the oracle resolution system, to make it independent from human opinion and whale coordination. Cryptopolitan Academy: Want to grow your money in 2025? Learn how to do it with DeFi in our upcoming webclass. Save Your Spot
9 Jul 2025, 07:38
Polymarket’s closely watched prediction market on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would appear in a suit before July has ended in controversy, closing with a final resolution of “No” despite widespread media coverage suggesting otherwise. Key Takeaways: Polymarket ruled “No” on whether Zelenskyy wore a suit, sparking backlash. Traders criticized the decision despite media and photo evidence suggesting he did. This marks the second suit-related controversy involving Zelenskyy on Polymarket. The market, which drew over $237 million in trading volume, became one of the platform’s most active this year. It asked whether Zelenskyy would be “photographed or videotaped wearing a suit” between March 22 and June 30. Zelenskyy Sparks Buzz by Ditching Signature Military Look at NATO Event Zelenskyy was widely reported to have worn what many described as a suit during a June 24 NATO event in the Netherlands. However, the decentralized oracle operated by UMA ruled the evidence insufficient, citing a lack of “consensus of credible reporting.” Initially resolved as “Yes,” the contract outcome was reversed after a challenge, with a second review ultimately locking in the “No” result on Tuesday evening. The ruling sparked backlash from traders and commentators, some accusing the protocol of inconsistency and poor governance. Critics pointed to multiple press reports and visual footage that clearly showed Zelenskyy in a black jacket, collared shirt, and matching trousers—an ensemble many argued met the criteria. Others noted that a similar outfit worn by Zelenskyy in a previous market had also been ruled as not qualifying as a suit, suggesting the rejection was in line with precedent. Still, the reaction was heated. Martin Shkreli, a polarizing figure in the crypto space, livestreamed his frustration on July 1, labeling the resolution process a “scam” and threatening to raise the issue with Polymarket’s backers. The controversy spilled into rival platforms, with traders on Myriad Markets launching bets on how Polymarket’s oracle would rule. Prominent menswear commentator Derek Guy added fuel to the fire , quipping on June 26 that the outfit was “both a suit and not a suit.” This is not the first time Zelenskyy’s wardrobe has triggered a betting uproar on Polymarket. A similar dispute erupted in May over whether his outfit during a German meeting counted as a suit. That market ultimately ruled “no,” despite Derek Guy asserting the matching cloth made it technically a suit. Polymarket Nears Unicorn Status With $200M Raise As reported, Polymarket is close to securing a $200 million funding round led by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, valuing the crypto-based prediction platform at $1 billion. Despite being banned in the U.S. and raided by the FBI last year , Polymarket’s user base and market activity have surged, with over 21,000 open markets and $700 million in active trading volume. The platform recently partnered with Elon Musk’s X to integrate prediction markets with Grok, X’s AI chatbot, boosting its visibility amid ongoing regulatory hurdles. Polymarket has seen explosive growth since the 2024 U.S. election, hitting a $2.5 billion trading peak in November, but it remains restricted in several countries and faces criticism over potential market manipulation. The post Zelenskyy Suit Controversy Ends in “No” on Polymarket, Traders Cry Foul appeared first on Cryptonews .
9 Jul 2025, 01:38
Discontent over the market’s resolution has reignited scrutiny of UMA’s dispute system and the influence of large Polymarket stakeholders.
