Israeli Gamblers Challenge Polymarket Over Disputed US-Iran Peace Deal Bet

A group of gamblers, including Israelis, is contesting the outcome of a major bet on the prediction platform Polymarket after it ruled that the US and Iran had reached a final peace agreement by June 15. The dispute arose because the platform’s decision was based on a voting mechanism that allowed seven cryptocurrency holders to control over half the votes, despite the bet’s terms requiring a definitive end to hostilities rather than a temporary or preliminary agreement.

According to a report by Omer Kabir in Calcalist, the series of bets on the timing of a final peace deal involved around $479 million in total. The specific wager on whether the agreement would be signed by June 15 alone accounted for approximately $177.4 million. The platform’s ruling was based on a memorandum of understanding signed mid-June that mentioned an "immediate and permanent" end to military actions but also stipulated a 60-day negotiation period to finalize the deal. The official signing occurred on June 17, two days after the bet’s deadline.

One Israeli bettor, identified only as B, said he lost about 100,000 shekels and could have salvaged 80% of his funds had he sold earlier, but trusted Polymarket to reject a temporary agreement as final. Another Israeli gambler, Omer Aganbayahu, who lost $2,300, argued that no signed document or official announcement from both governments confirming a final peace deal was made by June 15. He also noted Iran had indicated ongoing negotiations past the deadline.

The dispute resolution was handled by Polymarket’s decentralized arbitration system UMA, where voting power is weighted by the amount of UMA tokens held. Analysis showed the largest wallet controlled 16.7% of votes, with the top seven wallets controlling 50.3%. All seven voted that the final agreement was reached on time. Critics claim some wallets that stood to benefit financially from a "yes" outcome also participated in the vote, raising conflict of interest concerns.

The gamblers say they have sent numerous inquiries to Polymarket without response and are considering legal action. They argue the arbitration process violated the bet’s written rules and that allowing a small group of token holders to decide outcomes involving hundreds of millions of dollars is unfair and potentially manipulative.