I, along with many others, have suffered financial losses due to Polymarket’s unjust resolution of the Fordow market to “Yes.” This market, titled “Will the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant be destroyed by June 30, 2025?”, was governed by strict criteria: it would only resolve to "Yes" if the underground enrichment facilities housing centrifuges at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) in Iran were rendered non-functional, and there was confirmation either from:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the Iranian government, or
A wide consensus of credible reporting confirming the actual destruction of those underground facilities.
As of June 30, 2025 — the market's resolution date — none of these criteria were met:

The IAEA did not confirm destruction of Fordow’s underground centrifuge facilities. They stated that the centrifuges were "no longer operational," due to suspected shock damage, but they had not been granted access to the site and made clear that their assessment was based on remote indicators, not direct inspection. In fact, the IAEA Director General explicitly stated that returning to Fordow remains a top priority, underscoring that no on-site verification had occurred.

The Iranian government has issued no statement confirming destruction.
There is no wide consensus of credible reporting confirming that the underground enrichment halls were destroyed — only speculative satellite analysis with no definitive verification.
Crucially, the terms “no longer operational” and “rendered non-functional” are not equivalent.

“No longer operational” simply means the equipment isn’t currently running — it can be restarted, repaired, or reactivated.
“Rendered non-functional” implies a confirmed, irreversible physical incapacitation — which requires proof of destruction or permanent disablement.
That level of confirmation was neither provided nor possible without IAEA access.

Despite this, Polymarket resolved the market to “Yes,” violating its own resolution criteria. This is not a matter of interpretation — it is a direct misrepresentation of material conditions, and may constitute securities fraud, especially given the real money involved and the reliance by users on clearly defined rules.

This petition has three goals:

1. Compensation for all holders of the “No” position, whose losses stemmed directly from this wrongful resolution.
2. An independent investigation into Polymarket’s decision-making process and the entities involved.
3. Public accountability and operational reform by Polymarket to prevent future manipulations or breaches of trust.

Prediction markets must operate on the basis of transparent, objective, and verifiable outcomes. When a platform overrides its own standards and resolves markets based on speculation or pressure, it ceases to function as a fair marketplace and instead becomes a rigged mechanism for selective profit.

We demand justice for affected users, the restoration of transparency, and concrete steps to hold Polymarket accountable. Sign this petition to call for full restitution, regulatory review, and enforcement of integrity in all future resolutions.