[Agreed3750]

That is true. UMA tokens are just a coin on the blockchain that can be bought. The resolution is put up for a vote. People can vote by staking their tokens and the losing side(s) lose their tokens. The winning side are rewarded the tokens of losing sides. In theory you can just buy out these votes with enough money/tokens

[Scea91]

UMA's security model assumes the cost to corrupt the oracle exceeds the profit from corruption. It is quite interesting because it doesn't consider the Polymarket side at all in the calculation.

Doesn't this whole model break down when the Polymarket market far exceeds UMA's market cap?

[forgotTheLast]

Wouldn't UMA tokens increase in value proportionally to Polymarket's market cap, considering they're basically a unit of control of that market cap?

[Scea91]

I am pretty low confidence here but I think in theory it should but in practice there is no mechanism enforcing that?

UMA's current market cap is $68M. There are some Polymarket markets far exceeding that.

[paxys]

Not really, because unless you control 50% of all tokens they are worthless.

[rokkamokka]

Only if you assume literally all other tokens are voting against you

[Grimblewald]

Not just in theory, it happens frequently. There's multiple 'markets' that resolved in untruth when it suited UMA whales. Polymarket is a scam site, with a thin veneer of gambling over the top.

[Dylan16807]

Got examples? Articles about them? That sounds very interesting.

[Grimblewald]

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/isn-t-decentralized-says-p...

Here's a decent enough starting point.