Users of Polymarket, a decentralized betting platform, are expressing dissatisfaction after losing money on bets against the approval of spot Ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs). They argue that the bet is still ongoing.
One betting market on the blockchain platform 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) greenlight of the 19b-4 filings for multiple Ether ETFs. Polymarket’s logs confirm that the result was briefly disputed but ultimately resolved with the same “Yes” outcome.
However, those who voted “No” argue that the call is incorrect. They state that a United States ETF requires an approved 19b-4 filing and Form S-1 to commence trading on an exchange, and without the S-1 filing, a “Yes” result should not have been declared.
Analysts predict that it could take months for the SEC to approve the S-1 filings, which some “No” voters may have based their bets on.
A prominent “No” bidder, known as “JustKen,” changed their name to “RevengeTour19B4” after the controversy and cited 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 are signed off by the SEC.
Unhappy bettors also referenced comments made by Matt Hougan, the chief investment officer of Bitwise, during the Unchained podcast. Hougan described ETFs as a “nuclear key scenario” where issuers must submit the 19b-4 and S-1 filings for approval.
On the other hand, some winners in the “Yes” camp argued that the market specified “approval,” not the requirement for ETFs to start trading by May 31.
Some argue that the SEC’s 19b-4 approvals should be considered final approval, as Form S-1 approvals typically follow.
Risk Labs, the company behind UMA, a blockchain oracle platform that handles information disputes on Polymarket, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Similarly, Polymarket’s development firm, Adventure One QSS Inc., did not provide immediate comment.
In conclusion, Polymarket users who bet against the approval of Ether ETFs are unhappy with the platform’s decision to close the market with a “Yes” outcome. They believe that the bet is still ongoing, as the required filings for ETF approval have not been completed.