Polymarket users who bet against the approval of spot Ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are expressing their dissatisfaction with the decentralized betting platform, arguing that the bet is still ongoing. On the blockchain platform, one betting market saw over $13.2 million in bets placed on whether an Ether ETF would be approved by May 31, but it did not provide a clear definition of what “approved” meant.
The market closed with a “Yes” result on May 23 after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the 19b-4 filings for multiple Ether ETFs. Polymarket’s logs show that there was initially some dispute over the result but it was ultimately resolved with the same “Yes” outcome.
However, those who voted “No” argue that the call is incorrect, stating that a United States ETF requires an approved 19b-4 filing and Form S-1 to begin trading on an exchange. Without the S-1 filing, they believe that a “Yes” result should not have been declared. Analysts predict that it could take months for the SEC to approve the S-1s, which some “No” voters may have based their bets on.
A prominent “No” bidder, known as “JustKen” and later changed their name to “RevengeTour19B4,” referred to a post by Matthew Sigel, the research head of VanEck digital assets, which stated that ETFs are not considered “approved” until both the S-1 and 19b-4 filings are signed off by the SEC.
Unhappy bettors also highlighted comments made by Bitwise investment chief Matt Hougan on the Unchained podcast, where he referred to ETFs as a “nuclear key scenario” and emphasized the importance of the 19b-4 and S-1 for approval.
On the other hand, some supporters of the “Yes” outcome argue that the market specifically stated “approval,” not the requirement for ETFs to start trading by May 31.
Some individuals claim that the SEC’s 19b-4 approvals are considered final approval, as Form S-1 approvals typically follow.
Risk Labs, the company behind UMA, a blockchain oracle platform that handles information disputes on Polymarket, has not yet responded to requests for comment on the situation. Similarly, Polymarket’s development firm, Adventure One QSS Inc., has not provided any comments.