Dear holders of "Yes" shares.
This is an official statement from the Pedro Team to each of you, to all our supporters, to all interested parties, and to those who believe they suffered as a result of actions by Polymarket / the UMA protocol, the legality and good faith of which raise serious questions.
For the sake of the full picture, allow us to briefly recall what happened.
On the Polymarket prediction market concerning the extension of the ceasefire regime between the United States and Iran — we became holders of shares on the "Yes" outcome:
us-x-iran-ceasefire-extended-by-april-22-2026
Within the timeframe specified in the dispute, the relevant agreement was reached and confirmed by a large number of authoritative sources:
President of the United States
Direct, on-record confirmation.
Prime Minister of Pakistan
Iran's official intermediary and exclusive mediator of the process.
UN press release
For the media — distributed by the United Nations.
Objective data
The absence of any hostilities — verifiable on the ground.
…as well as numerous sources, including both Western and Iranian media.
Their position is that, in the absence of a direct statement from authorized Iranian officials — among whom they do not include the official intermediary and mediator represented by Pakistan — and in the absence of an "overwhelming media consensus," the dispute cannot be resolved in favor of the "Yes" position.
At the same time, the market rules provide no explanation as to which specific media outlets are included in the list of media participating in such a consensus, nor do they specify any methodology for calculating an "overwhelming consensus." They also found no grounds for a P3 decision — 50/50, which is officially provided as one of the options in the voting procedure.
A good analogy for what happened was written by one of our team members. The analogy is not direct for ethical reasons, but it illustrates the essence of the situation perfectly:
Imagine, solely as a thought experiment, a medieval town — let us call it PedroLand.
The entire neighboring town — let us call it UMAland — is engulfed in flames, with thick smoke visible for hundreds of kilometers. It burns for one day, two days, three days, a week. Residents of nearby towns, exhausted by the constant fumes, begin arguing about when it will finally be extinguished.
— "I bet they won't put it out within a week!" one resident shouted in frustration.
— "What are we betting?" the second immediately replied.
— "Ten gold coins, if you want!"
— "Deal."In the presence of witnesses, the bet was certified by the treasurer.
✕
On the seventh day, residents of the neighboring towns were awakened by torrential rain. When the clouds cleared and the sun came out, it became clear: there was no more smoke coming from the burning town. None at all. And no flames were visible.
People were no longer running into the town with buckets, the wounded were no longer being carried out on carts, the town halls of all neighboring towns issued statements that the fire in UMAland had ended, and the heads of all emergency services were sitting in bars, resting after hard work.
People immediately began returning to the burned town, and lines of volunteers carrying tools started moving in. The smell of burning disappeared with the first strong winds, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
— "Well, you lost. The fire was put out — hand over my winnings."
— "One moment!" the treasurer suddenly intervenes from nowhere. "I certified the bet, and here is the paper. And the paper clearly states: from the moment of the presumed end of the fire, this fact must be confirmed within twenty-four hours by the mayor of UMAland, who must send me a telegram by post on official parchment, with the town seal and the signatures of all elders."
— "Wait. But there is no longer any post office in UMAland, no town hall, no parchment, no seals, no assembly of elders — and possibly no elders themselves together with the mayor. Everything burned down. And everyone can see that the fire has definitely been put out: there is no smoke, no fire, everyone is resting, the residents are returning. Even the mayor of our town confirmed it. And the mayors of neighboring towns. I definitely won the bet!"
— "I know nothing. There is no telegram — therefore, the bet is lost. Period."
This is exactly the situation in which we now find ourselves.
The whole world knows that the ceasefire was reached, and this has a number of credible confirmations. We will do everything to ensure that the whole world also learns that Polymarket believes otherwise and, on that basis, is prepared to deprive the holders of "Yes" shares of more than 200 million dollars. Likely and presumably — in favor of a group of people acting through fraudulent and unlawful methods.
What each side has actually put on the table.
What we have
-
Head of stateU.S. President
Direct, on-record confirmation — one of the two parties to the agreement.
-
Official mediatorPrime Minister of Pakistan
Iran's official intermediary and exclusive mediator — confirmed publicly.
-
International bodyUnited Nations
Press release distributed to media — institutional acknowledgement.
-
Head of state · post-factumPresident of Iran
Pezeshkian — covered post-factum (before Polymarket's final decision) by a number of media reports.
-
Media · both sidesWestern and Iranian outlets
Converging reporting throughout the disputed window — no Iranian denial at any point.
-
Objective realityZero recorded hostilities
No combat, no strikes, no escalation — verifiable on the ground for the entire period.
-
Silence regimeNo denial from anyone
Throughout the proceedings nobody contradicted the extension — no Iranian, U.S., mediator or world leader.
-
LogicLaw of the excluded middle
Binary state: no ceasefire ⇒ hostilities. There were none.
What they have
-
Iranian official positionNo statement
Not a single authorized Iranian official denied the extension.
-
Ground truthNo recorded hostilities
Not a single combat episode within the disputed window.
-
SourcesNo retraction
Neither the U.S., the mediators, the UN, nor any media that confirmed the extension walked it back.
-
MethodologyNo "media consensus" rule
No list of qualifying outlets, no calculation rule, no defined threshold.
-
ProcedureNo grounds to reject P3
The officially-available P3 50/50 option was discarded without justification.
-
Alternative stateNo proof of the opposite
Zero evidence that relations were in a state opposite to the ceasefire.
-
Legal logicNo subject argument
Verification methods were elevated above the actual subject of the dispute.
-
EvidenceNothing — at all
No piece of evidence that the event moved from "Yes" to "No". Not one.
For the entire duration of the proceedings the silence regime was not broken — not by Iran, not by the United States, not by the official mediator, not by the United Nations, not by any of the media that had previously confirmed the extension. On the opposite side: zero pieces of evidence. The asymmetry is total.
They are persistently trying to distract us from the essence of the market.
Whether an agreement would be reached between the parties to extend the ceasefire regime.
This — and only this — is what the market was actually about.
"Will the President of Iran confirm on Twitter…"
This is one of the methods of verifying an outcome — not the subject of the dispute.
Our market was not called "Will the President of Iran confirm on Twitter the extension of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran if it is concluded." That was not the subject of the dispute.
The essence of the dispute was entirely different: whether an agreement would be reached between the parties to extend the ceasefire regime.
Everything else is merely a method of verifying one outcome or another. These methods are not the subject of the dispute. One element of verification cannot be more important than the subject of the dispute itself, and it cannot cancel an obvious outcome of the event, determined by alternative verification elements, in favor of the opposite decision, for which there is no confirmation at all.
All arguments are on our side. They are logical and consistent. The arguments of the opposing side are entirely absent.
There were no recorded hostilities during the specified period, nor were there any denials from Iran, world leaders, or the media that had previously confirmed the extension of the ceasefire or had refrained from making any statements.
Nor do they have evidence that the legal state of relations between the two countries during the specified period allowed for hostilities. In other words, there is no data whatsoever indicating that relations between the two countries during the specified period were in a state opposite to the "Yes" outcome / ceasefire regime.
If it is not heads, then it is tails. If a room is dark, then the light is not on. If a bit is not equal to 0, then it is equal to 1. If a pole is not the North Pole, then it is the South Pole. If there is no ceasefire regime, then there is a regime of hostilities.
Not heads ⇒ tails.
Room dark ⇒ light off.
Not North ⇒ South.
No peace ⇒ war.
In logic, this is called the law of the excluded middle.
Our dispute concerns a binary state. If a system has only two possible positions, then exiting one position automatically means entering the other.
In addition to the injustice of the above-described process for resolving this market, we also believe that we became victims of collusion by major holders of "No" shares and the oracles of the UMA protocol. We believe that they were personally interested in a particular outcome of this event.
There are also sufficient grounds to assert that this market was influenced by a number of manipulative instruments directly prohibited by the platform's rules and by the laws of all economically developed countries:
All these facts were documented online in a legally proper manner and in accordance with the laws of the relevant jurisdictions. In the future, they will become materials for many independent investigations published online, and may also become materials for lawsuits on our part and criminal investigations in different jurisdictions by law enforcement authorities.
We consider the decision adopted by the Polymarket platform to be erroneous, incorrect, unlawful, and one that must be overturned and reviewed in favor of the holders of "Yes" shares, with full payment of the value of our shares — based on their value and taking into account the capitalization of the entire market at the time of its closure, had the decision been adopted in favor of "Yes."
Right now, we are forging our media hammer by the sweat of our brow —
but very soon, we will begin striking with it.
Best viewed on a desktop / laptop. Please open the site from a computer and make sure that video autoplay is not blocked in your browser — the page relies on background video to set the tone.
- Chrome / Edgeclick the icon in the address bar and allow “Sound” and “Auto-play” for the site.
- SafariSettings → Websites → Auto-Play → “Allow All Auto-Play”.
- Firefoxclick the shield / lock icon in the address bar and set Autoplay to “Allow Audio and Video”.
- Brave / Opera / Vivaldithe same Chromium controls apply.