Polymarket faces conflict of interest claims over 'judge' betting

A conflict of interest controversy is growing around the prediction market Polymarket, as 20% of the addresses acting as judges in its dispute resolution process were found to have a direct stake in the outcomes they were ruling on, The Wall Street Journal reported. For dispute resolution, Polymarket uses the decentralized Optimistic Oracle system from a third-party service, UMA, in which anonymous cryptocurrency holders vote on challenged outcomes. This means UMA holders effectively act as judges. The platform is also facing criticism over allegations of result manipulation by whale investors and a loss of neutrality due to its low dispute deposit requirement of around $750.