Tanju Akbıyık 
Polymarket is a decentralized betting platform that recently witnessed a highly contested decision on whether an Ethereum exchange-traded fund (ETF) will be approved. The bet, which reached more than $13. 2 million based on the expectation of an approval of an Ether ETF by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before May 31. On May 23, the market ended with a “Yes” outcome for ETFs after the SEC approved 19b-4 filings for several Ether ETFs.
Dispute Over Definition of “Approval”
However, those who bet against approval still believe that the bet should remain active. They argue that to start trading, a U.S. ETF must have an approved 19b-4 exemption and a Form S-1. Without the S-1 filing, it cannot be, they claim, that there is a definite ‘Yes’ outcome. Experts stand in this regard, pointing to the fact that it might take several months before the S-1 forms are approved by the SEC.
Another “No” bidder, who goes by the name of “JustKen”, who has since changed their name to “RevengeTour19B4”, pointed to VanEck’s research head of digital assets, Matthew Sigel, who argued that ETFs are not fully “approved” unless both the 19b-4 and S-1 filings are approved by the SEC. Bitwise investment CEO, Matt Hougan, also agreed with this
Ongoing Debate and Lack of Response
This has left the Polymarket community divided and polarized into two factions. Some ‘Yes’ advocates point out that the bet’s conditions were clear: the word was ‘approval,’ not the start of trading by May 31. They state that 19b-4 filings constitute the final approval of the SEC, and Form S-1 approvals are similarly aligned.
As of the time of writing, neither Risk Labs, the company behind UMA, a blockchain oracle that deals with information disputes in Polymarket, nor Polymarket’s development firm, Adventure One QSS Inc. has responded to the issue.