Zelenskyy’s suit bet leaves traders baffled after $240M market resolves to ‘no’
A bizarre yet high-stakes question — “Will Volodymyr Zelenskyy wear a suit before July 1?” — became one of the most talked-about events on prediction platform Polymarket this week.
The market saw over $240 million in volume, and when the market resolved to “No,” despite wide public reporting and photo evidence, many participants were left shocked, sparking an intense debate over how these outcomes are decided.
i still don't get why Zelenskyy wouldn't bet millions in yes on "will he wear a suit" on polymarket then just actually wear an actual suit and use the money for Ukraine defense or something
— RYAN SΞAN ADAMS - rsa.eth 🦄 (@RyanSAdams) July 9, 2025
what am I missing about prediction markets?
The market rules were simple: for a “Yes” outcome, Zelenskyy needed to be “photographed or videotaped wearing a suit between May 22 and June 30, 2025,” and the footage had to be confirmed by “a consensus of credible reporting.” If not, the result would be “No.”
‘Crystal clear’ consensus, yet a surprise outcome
In the lead-up to the July 1 deadline, multiple media reports surfaced showing Zelenskyy attending the NATO summit in a formal black outfit. Several outlets described it as a “suit” or “black suit jacket.”
So, when the market closed and the final result was declared “No,” confusion set in. “The consensus was crystal clear. Yet the result was NO,” said a widely circulated thread by user Atlantis Liquidity. According to them, the evidence overwhelmingly supported a “Yes” resolution.
Join the discussion with CryptoWendyO on Roundtable here.
A graphic shared in the thread listed 10+ news headlines with quotes like “Zelenskyy swaps military fatigues for black suit,” “Zelenskyy suits up after Trump rebuke,” and “Zelenskyy wears a suit for the first time.”
Voter oracle system draws attention
The decision was made through UMA, a “voter oracle” protocol used to resolve Polymarket questions. In this setup, token holders vote on the correct outcome based on the published rules and available data.
But here’s where some traders raised eyebrows.
According to Atlantis, one whale — voting across a cluster of wallets — allegedly held over 85% of the voting power and helped steer the final result to “No.” One wallet was shown sharing a message that read: “It doesn’t matter about the suit. We have more UMA tokens. I’m not losing my investment. Force it through.”
1/ 🧵 The Legal Case Against Polymarket’s Zelenskyy Suit Resolution
— Atlantis liquidity (@Atlantislq) July 9, 2025
Polymarket and UMA resolved a $240M+ market against overwhelming evidence and user expectations.
Here’s why this decision is not just wrong it may be legally and ethically indefensible👇 pic.twitter.com/hD9YwG3P7W
The thread noted that this raises tough questions about governance, not just about one market. “The issue is bigger than just one bet,” it read. “If users can’t rely on published rules or resolution logic, the foundation of prediction markets collapses.”
Others in the community weighed in. One user said, “Wouldn’t that be considered insider trading?” while another added, “Not looking bribe-able is worth way more than the money in the market.”
To be clear, no wrongdoing by Polymarket has been proven, and the resolution process followed its on-chain rules. The broader conversation now centers on how prediction markets — especially those resolved by governance votes — handle subjectivity when large sums are on the line.