Polymarket, a decentralized betting platform, is under scrutiny as users express dissatisfaction with the resolution of a multi-million-dollar bet on the approval of spot Ether exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The contentious bet, which saw over $13.2 million in wagers, has sparked debate over the interpretation of "approval" and whether the outcome was prematurely called.

The market in question closed with a "Yes" result on May 23, coinciding with news of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) greenlighting of 19b-4 filings for multiple Ether ETFs. However, dissenting voices argue that the outcome is premature, contending that full approval requires not only a 19b-4 filing but also a Form S-1 filing for trading to commence on an exchange.

Those who bet against the approval highlight the statements of industry experts, such as VanEck's Matthew Sigel and Bitwise's Matt Hougan, who assert that ETFs are not considered fully approved until both filings are signed off by the SEC. They emphasize that the SEC's 19b-4 approvals do not constitute final approval, as the Form S-1 filings typically follow.

In contrast, supporters of the "Yes" outcome maintain that the market specified "approval," not necessarily the commencement of trading by May 31. Some argue that the SEC's 19b-4 approvals are indeed indicative of final approval, with Form S-1 approvals expected to follow in due course.

As the dispute unfolds, Risk Labs, the entity behind UMA, which provides a platform for handling information disputes on Polymarket, has yet to comment on the situation. Similarly, Adventure One QSS Inc., the development firm behind Polymarket, has not responded to requests for comment.