UMA DIGEST — 22 SEPTEMBER 2026

⚠️ Bugs & Issues

Tennis market rewards have been lowered due to the same bug previously seen in table tennis. Several users noted this may not have been communicated clearly enough, as proposers were still rushing to submit immediately. Discussion suggests that at the reduced reward (~$0.8 vs. prior ~$3.50), instant proposals are borderline unprofitable after gas costs.

📋 Clarifications

Trump "Alaska" market (Sep 14–20): b3gott3n argued there was no proof the video was filmed within the market's timeframe and requested a dispute window extension. The market resolved Yes before action could be taken. aenews stated the video was pre-recorded on the 16th, not during the market window. nefffooor countered that solid proof of a date existed. abhiz69 noted it likely wasn't a misresolve given a recently added rule clause specifying that content recorded during the contract period and released within the timeframe qualifies. mebeim acknowledged the clause exists but called it a poor rule for situations like this.

Russian parliamentary election ("which party gains most seats"): The market was proposed before full vote counts were in (~90% counted at proposal time). aenews, who had a large position (~$500k+) in the market, noted the ambiguity between "gains most seats" vs. "wins most seats" and that proposers could have avoided dispute risk by waiting ~40 more minutes for official CEC results. The market ultimately appears to have resolved without a dispute.

Finkelstein vs. Gabelic Match O/U 21.5: A proposer initially submitted all three game total lines (21.5, 22.5, 23.5) as 50/50 due to a walkover. The 22.5 and 23.5 proposals were disputed and reproposed as unders. joes49572 noted the 21.5 line is genuinely ambiguous (max possible games = 22–23 depending on tiebreak), while 22.5 and 23.5 unders are mathematically determinable.

⚡ Disputes

Tennis resolution source debate: An ongoing argument continues over whether ITF's official site should be the required resolution source. joes49572 argues ITF's site lags 30–60 seconds behind other data sources, making it unsuitable for timely proposals, while still acceptable as a verification source. woodmark520 and others pushed back, noting that third-party sites derive data from ITF anyway. No rule change was announced.