Resolution Trust
How cleanly and verifiably the market can be settled. In plain terms: can you trust the resolution process, or is it exposed to governance capture, a platform override, ambiguous criteria, or being written to resolve 'invalid'?
How we score it
We score the declared resolution path. A named, reputable authority (official data, tier-1 outlets) with an explicit dispute mechanism raises the score; resolution that hinges on operator discretion, an anonymous source, or a token vote that is cheap to buy relative to the pot lowers it. The hardest-firing real-world anchors are token-vote governance capture (a whale forcing a 'Yes'), platform override of a decentralized oracle, and engineered-ambiguity markets designed to pay out on 'invalid' — each maps to a distinct deduction.
How to read your score
Higher means a clearer, more trustworthy settlement path. A lower score flags ambiguous or single-source resolution, or a vote-based mechanism whose outcome could be bought. This axis is scored 0-100; the composite weights it at 15%.
No meaningful risk signal on this axis. Nothing here that warrants extra scrutiny before taking a position.
A clean read with only minor or ambiguous signals. Reasonable to proceed with normal due diligence.
A moderate signal worth a second look. Read the evidence on the market page before sizing a position.
A pronounced structural signal on this axis. Understand exactly what is driving it before participating.
A strong structural signal. This axis is the kind of thing a careful trader would resolve before trusting the market's price.
Signals we look for
Resolution that hinges on operator discretion rather than a named, verifiable authority.
A token-vote oracle whose vote is cheap relative to the size of the pot (capture risk).
A history of the platform overriding its own decentralized oracle.
Anonymous or unverifiable resolution sources.
Markets whose structure makes an 'invalid' / equal-split payout plausible.
References
The academic, industry, and regulatory sources that ground how this dimension is scored. Each note states what the source backs.
Polymarket says governance attack by UMA whale to hijack a bet's resolution is 'unprecedented'
The Block (Ukraine mineral-deal market) · 2025
Confirmed resolution capture: ~5M UMA across three accounts (~25% of the vote) forced a 'Yes'; the hardest-firing Resolution Trust anchor.
Polymarket rules 'no' on $237M bet over whether Zelenskyy wore a suit
Decrypt (UMA resolution-flip dispute) · 2025
Shows resolution can hinge on a contested token vote whose market cap was smaller than the disputed market's volume.
Augur scam highlights code-is-law vulnerability of prediction markets
Brave New Coin (engineered-ambiguity invalid-payout exploit) · 2019
Confirmed class: markets written with title/expiry contradictions that profit from the equal-split 'invalid' payout.
Statistical signals, not allegations. Every dimension measures a structural property of a market — the shape of its flow, the clarity of its question, the trustworthiness of its resolution source. A low score flags where a careful trader should look harder. It is never a claim that a specific account, or the market itself, has broken a rule.