Pinned Tweet
Tweet 1/8
The QatarEnergy LNG Polymarket dispute is a case study in how UMA's optimistic oracle can get hijacked by narrative over rules.
Market: "QatarEnergy announces/resumes LNG production by April 30?"Traded at 3¢ NO right before the deadline. Then this happened 👇
sonic retweeted
The Avici attacker spent $190 to take $670K
@avici has confirmed the exploit. Here is what the chain shows:
- the wallet was created today at 13:40 UTC and funded with $190 of USDC bridged from Ethereum, just enough for gas
- draining started at 16:49 and is still running, 8,857 transactions and counting
- every account is taken the same way: submit a signature bundle, call AddCollateralAdmin to make yourself an admin, then withdraw
- the second signature check pointed back at instruction 0, so Solana verified the attacker's own signature a second time while the program credited an admin key it should never have accepted
- that left the attacker as an admin on more than 1,100 collateral accounts
- median taken per account was $24, the largest single one in my sample was $5,268
- a first batch of about $576K was moved off the wallet between 18:19 and 18:34 UTC, and it kept filling up after that
The program was not upgraded or replaced. Its upgrade key has not been touched since March 2025. This was an authorisation bug, not a stolen deploy key
One thing going around that does not hold up. This was not a treasury drain, every dollar came out of individual user accounts one at a time
Did you keep funds on Avici?
Fuck, I raised this amount from $200 and Furia couldn't even take their best map, it was obvious that Furia would lose, but I didn't expect it to be so devastating
To those who say this market is a scam: you haven’t seen a real scam market. This market is completely legitimate because it has clear time frames, and that’s part of the rules. If you want to see a real scam market, here it is: teapawt.net/sonicalcoholic/status/…
UMA whales are currently trying to resolve the May 31st market as NO on the basis that the sale wasn't announced until today, June 1st
When the rules clearly state the market will be resolved based on information from MSTR & on-chain data:
- Saylor announced 32 BTC were sold in the period ending 4pm on May 31st
- Sale price of $77,135 indicates a sale no later than May 26th
- There are even onchain transfers of $30M BTC from Strategy to Coinbase Prime on May 29th
What more evidence do you want?
HIP-4 fixes this.
Hyperliquid.
Result for 2 days, mainly trade sports and eSports markets
polymarket.com/?r=bigass
I traded $10k from $100 in 3 weeks on the polymarket and successfully lost it all on the Qatar Energy market scam.
I'm going to start my challenge again, without the murky political and low-liquidity markets
Subscribe if you want updates, I won't post anything if no one is interested in it
You people who are unhappy about the market situation regarding the ceasefire Russia and Ukraine, yet who claimed the rules don’t apply to the market regarding the resumption of gas production by QatarEnergy—you fucking hypocrites!
If you think markets should follow their own rules, then that should apply to all markets or to none at all
It’s exactly the same thing I wrote about the QatarEnergy market! they just kept harping on an article that didn’t work at all in April, so why did it work when the market was already closing on NO? This is surreal; I don’t believe Polymarket missed this. Apparently, this market just had low participation from a large number of people. I hope something changes, and that it will also affect the QatarEnergy market, where I lost $10k
teapawt.net/sonicalcoholic/status/…
sonic retweeted
Tweet 1/8
The QatarEnergy LNG Polymarket dispute is a case study in how UMA's optimistic oracle can get hijacked by narrative over rules.
Market: "QatarEnergy announces/resumes LNG production by April 30?"Traded at 3¢ NO right before the deadline. Then this happened 👇
2 recent scandalous markets on the Polymarket clearly ended with an outcome that was obvious to many. You can look at the history of disputes; they all ended the same way.
But in the case of QatarEnergy, you're saying that the obvious outcome will be resolved because the whales decided they could rely to the Kalshi, which ended on April 8? Why, then, didn’t the market on Polymarket close on April 8 along with Kalshi, but instead dropped to 98c?
Until someone decided again on May 1 that the articles from April 8 were still relevant?
Anyone who reads the rules of this market will understand the outcome, but when you go up against the big players, it’s not the rules that matter, it’s the risk of loss for the whales, and consequently, the risk of lost revenue for the bookmaker.
I believed in the honesty of the @Polymarket before that, I was guided solely by the rules and nothing else, but today I realized that it is simply a community of whales who can move the price and determine the fate of each individual market
A: Source Credibility
Evaluated: Reuters (Apr 8) anonymous sources mistook repairs for production. Liable CEOs (TTE, Exxon) confirmed May 1 that trains need cool down; zero production by Apr 30.
Triple Lock: Operational (Exxon: offline), Financial (Conoco: zeroed Q2 Qatar guidance), Strategic (TTE: awaiting stability).
Apr satellite hotspots = misinterpreted (fires/repairs). Partners cannot hide revenue.
B: Consensus
Corroboration: 100% JV partner alignment:Apr 29 (TTE): Production shut down.
Apr 30 (Conoco): Qatar removed from guidance.
May 1 (Exxon): Trains not operational; 3-5yr repair timeline.
Challenge: YES failed on misinterpretation: Journalists saw ships (stored offtake) and flares (repairs). Operator wins over observer.
Wide Consensus: As of May 2, consensus is No. Apr rumors were deceptive snapshots; official disclosures confirm zero LNG production before deadline.
Links TotalEnergies: investing.com/news/transcrip… seekingalpha.com/article/489… zawya.com/en/projects/oil-an… finance.yahoo.com/sectors/en… ExxonMobil: theguardian.com/business/202… finance.yahoo.com/sectors/en… tikr.com/blog/exxonmobil-q1-…
ConocoPhillips: qz.com/conocophillips-produc… reuters.com/business/energy/…
another credible source, dated 01-May-2026 | 16:01 EDT spglobal.com/ratings/en/regu… another one from naturalgasintel (known credible and specialized source for energy sector) naturalgasintel.com/news/gol… agbi.com/oil-and-gas/2026/05… By Valentina Pasquali | May 1, 2026, 1:32 PM for other analyst/research sources teapawt.net/PipelineFlows/status/2… splash247.com/qatar-lng-face… Edit: Added more links. AS PER THE RULES: The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from QatarEnergy (qatarenergy.qa/en/Pages/vHom…); however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Consensus of Credible Reporting all point to P1. Rules did not state Kalshi as a resolution source (runs different rules).
QatarEnergy has not yet restarted production, but it has reportedly begun the process to restart. Several Qatari-laden ships have approached the strait in recent weeks and turned back. A single transit does not signal a reopening, and no other LNG tankers have followed yet. criterionrsch.com #NatGas #LNG
