Zelensky’s suit market on Polymarket got finally settled, nonetheless the debate hasn’t been fully watered down yet and media interest has been picking up. I’ve seen a lot of different takes on my feed by @FhantomBets, @Atlantislq, @rezy_io, @stillgray, @omeragoldberg , @WR_Crypto and others, so I’ll try to do a reasonable “fact-check” on different claims. Not because it would be an interesting market for trading or I would expect the resolution to be turned but bcs it’s a very interesting case study of culture and human perception, and as an argumentative debate. How I see the facts: - Ansem’s poll indeed looked like rigged by the bots, when I checked it the first time then the “no” was leading with slightly over 70%. Nonetheless it only highlighted disagreement between the people and the question didn’t have a specific market rules context, but was still a slight win for people who argue it’s not a suit by “cultural perception”. - The side who should prove and provide more evidence is the “no” side not “yes” side in this situation; the general rules supported “yes” considering media reporting & technical definition, “no” side argumentation is based on more subtle context and interpretation, what is tried to be framed as “common sense”, meanwhile being very speculative. - The “memecoin pump” parallel has some truth in it, the market in hand seemed to have much more attention and volume from this audience than on the site otherwise; nonetheless the main reason why the debate gathered so much attention is likely to be driven more by fairness instinct and passionate disagreements. - Anchoring: there’s some in the both sides. Since the expectations for Zelensky’s dressing have been low during war, then perceptionally it makes easier to see Zelensky “suiting up” if there’s some upgrade in his outfit with the previous ones. Meanwhile active Poly whales have anchored their perception to previously traded markets and personal interests, what makes it harder to be objective when we zoom out and talk about the truth in the current situation per se. - Context and cultural expectations. What qualifies for a “suit” culturally is tied a lot to specific environmental/event context. The reason why many people seemed to interpret similar outfit as a suit in a NATO meeting but not in a regular political meeting could be tied to a military context and framing (it matched with formal dress code requirements there and felt like an appropriate formal outfit). - People who have very rigid expectations for a suit (think tie is a must or it has to be a business suit) are enforcing their own stereotypical beliefs or see etiquettes in a very fixed way. Nonetheless it’s not an “objective truth”, there are just different subjective interpretations, there’s no consensus in it, and it’s normal from a fashion standpoint to mix different styles. - Eg, Pulp Fiction mixing a lot of different genres into one movie doesn’t mean it wouldn’t qualify as a ‘crime movie’ (if one goes to a theatre with an expectation to see a genre classic, then the expectation doesn’t define the answer to the question if it’s a crime movie or not). - It’s clear there’s a lot of disagreement about the question in hand and whether one side has a bit more support than the other, doesn’t really matter. What matters is that there’s no definite clear answer to it (or if we follow what the specific market rules said, then it imo favors “yes” side, what has been the trigger for outrage). Hence, Polymarket providing themselves a clarification without a supported evidence or reasoning, and later releasing no statement whatsoever is probably the most spineless behavior so far from their side we’ve seen. The debate may be over for people driven foremost by monetary incentives, but the UMA vote was always supposed to go where it went. Nonetheless it’s continually a worthy topic from the future of prediction markets POV bcs it set another quite discomforting precedent.