Polymarket Faces New UMA Controversy Amid Industry Skepticism
Polymarket faced another market resolution controversy on Saturday.
The odds of Donald Trump speaking with Chinese President Xi Jinping rose from about 24% to about 79%. Trump announced that a call had taken place, but China did not confirm the call. The odds fell to about 16%.
Then, a large UMA token voter switched their vote from No to Yes, pulling the price back up to about 94% in the early hours of Monday morning. A Polymarket trader named TheGreekTrader broke down the price movements and included a screenshot of the UMA voter.
Sadly, a few influential Polymarket/UMA voters can basically decide the outcome of markets.
Here’s what just happened:
There’s a market on whether Trump talked with President Xi in March.
Trump and Karoline Leavitt said they did, but China never confirmed it. And almost always… pic.twitter.com/FDNLWsuNHX
— The Greek Trader (@TheGreekTrader) March 30, 2026
Polymarket uses the UMA token to resolve its markets through votes on the outcome. However, the largest UMA token holders can exercise a disproportionate influence on the resolutions.
Kalshi has rolled out its ad campaign reminding viewers of its regulated status. Its ads highlight its prohibitions on insider trading and that it prohibits profiting from death or war. Kalshi has tried to differentiate itself from Polymarket to lawmakers and the general public.
Democrats raise insider trading concerns
A letter sent from ranking Democrats on House and Senate committees asked the CFTC to consider training for government employees regarding insider trading on prediction markets.
The letter cited trades on Polymarket that coincided with Venezuela’s capture and the timing of strikes on Iran. It also cited Kalshi’s market on the length of a Karoline Leavitt press conference. The lawmakers wrote:
“In short, given the exponential growth in prediction market trading, rising evidence suggesting possible governmental insider trading in prediction markets, and potential confusion surrounding existing law in this area, we ask that the CFTC and OGE issue guidance reminding federal employees of their existing legal obligation to refrain from using their insider governmental information to profit from prediction market trades.”
Meanwhile, a new survey has come out that paints an increasingly stark picture of perceptions of prediction markets.
Survey says prediction markets similar to gambling
The lobbying group, Gambling is Not Investing, commissioned a survey run by Morning Consult about prediction markets. It found that 81% of Americans believe trading event contracts is the equivalent of gambling.
The American Institute for Boys and Men released its own survey in March 2026. It found that 61% of respondents found trading on event contracts closer to gambling than investing. That figure dropped to 47% among boys aged 18-24. Fifty-four percent of self-reported prediction market users considered event contract trading closer to gambling than investing.
While prediction markets have tried to position themselves as the future of finance, news, and information, many consumers still view them as gambling platforms. State gaming commissions and state attorneys general largely concur.
Whether prediction markets ultimately keep sports contracts live, the industry faces an uphill battle in convincing the broader public that the exchanges are more than gambling.