Is the SEC document more authoritative or is Polymarket more authoritative? The review process of Polymarket is to conduct a debate on Discord and hand it over to a major player in UMA, a cryptocurrency project with a market value of only $55 million, for voting That is to say, the security and fairness of Polymarket's results, a project currently valued at 12 billion yuan, carries billions of trading volumes and corresponding predicted market results. The fairness of the results is only maintained by a few concentrated holders of projects with a market value of over 50 million yuan At present, there have been multiple instances of Polymarket tampering with facts, resulting in judgments that do not match objective facts. This incident has received widespread attention, and it is evident that the reason why the PM official is not reasonable is due to The objectivity and factual authority of SEC documents are far higher than other events that can be subjectively understood 2. The rigor of the problem itself is questionable. Since then, all predictions related to MSTR on PM have been based on announcements, but in this issue, there is no restriction on using announcement time as the basis for selling judgment 3. Additional explanation was added on June 1st, only after the results had already affected a significant amount of trading volume This incident encountered the micro strategy of selling coins, which only received widespread attention because the incident itself was noticed by people in the entire cryptocurrency circle. Behind it is exposed that the PM, the review mechanism for predicting the market, is a child's play, resulting in a systemic problem of no reasonable security guarantee Rome wasn't built in a day. When you discover an xx, it means there is already a nest of xx behind you