Can a suit be subjective? A $170M market is about to find out.

Since Russia’s invasion, Zelensky has worn military garb to signal wartime resolve. But one ambiguous outfit in June sparked a @Polymarket asking: did he wear a suit?

Now, $UMA voters must settle the answer—and millions hinge on how they define a suit.👇

~~ Analysis by @wmpeaster ~~

A “Will Zelensky wear a suit before July?” market was launched on May 22nd, 2025, running through June 30th. It has since seen over $170M in trading volume—but also major controversy.

The drama began on June 23rd, when Zelensky appeared in London wearing the outfit.

Dozens of outlets—including BBC, PBS, and The New York Times—called it a suit. Polymarket resolved the bet to “Yes,” meaning “Yes” voters would be paid out by “No” voters.

But the suit was unconventional, and a similar market in May 2025 resolved “No,” even though Zelensky wore a nearly identical outfit then.

That led challengers to dispute the new market’s “Yes” outcome using @UMAprotocol, Polymarket’s oracle protocol. They proposed a “No” resolution, which was then counter-challenged.

The final outcome will be decided today by $UMA’s $UMA tokenholders.

With millions on the line, debate has flared. Even menswear expert Derek Guy weighed in with a thread tracing the history of suits to assess the outfit.

His verdict: it technically qualified as a suit but didn’t align with common expectations. Reasonable ambiguity remains.

There are a few paths forward.

$UMA voters can lock in “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown”—the latter would return 50% of users’ bets. Polymarket could also cancel the market and fully refund users.

“Unknown” or a refund might provoke the least backlash but risk setting a precedent for ambiguity. A “No” outcome could spark backlash from “Yes” bettors claiming token-weighted votes overrode reality. A “Yes” could upset “No” bettors over inconsistent standards.

The takeaway: in onchain prediction markets, clear rules and governance matter as much as the tech.

Now it’s up to $UMA voters. Their ruling could either restore clarity—or deepen the controversy.