Users of Polymarket who lost money by betting against the approval of spot Ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are expressing their dissatisfaction with the decentralized betting platform, claiming that the bet is still ongoing.
On the blockchain platform, one betting market saw over $13.2 million in bets placed on whether an Ether ETF would be approved by May 31. However, the market did not clearly define what “approved” meant.
The market closed with a “Yes” result on May 23, following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approval of the 19b-4 filings for multiple Ether ETFs. Polymarket’s logs indicate that the result was briefly disputed but ultimately settled with the same “Yes” outcome.
Nevertheless, those who voted “No” argue that the decision is incorrect, stating that a United States ETF requires an approved 19b-4 filing and Form S-1 to commence trading on an exchange. Without the S-1 filing, they believe that a “Yes” result should not have been declared.
Analysts predict that it may take months before the SEC approves the S-1 filings, which some “No” voters may have relied on for their bets.
A prominent “No” bidder, known as “JustKen” but later changing their name to “RevengeTour19B4,” referenced a post by Matthew Sigel, the head of digital assets research at VanEck, who stated that ETFs are not considered “approved” until both the S-1 and 19b-4 filings have been authorized by the SEC.
Additionally, those in the “Yes” camp argue that the market specifically mentioned “approval,” rather than requiring the ETFs to commence trading by May 31.
Others contend that the SEC’s 19b-4 approvals are regarded as final approval, with Form S-1 approvals usually following suit.
Risk Labs, the company behind UMA, a blockchain oracle platform that handles information disputes on Polymarket, has not yet commented on the situation. Similarly, Polymarket’s development firm, Adventure One QSS Inc., has not provided a response to the request for comment.