Gamblers on the betting site Polymarket are blasting the prediction platform after it refused to pay out bets the United States would 'invade' Venezuela.
The refusal to pay up comes despite a US military operation last weekend capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores that saw them both transported them to the United States.
Polymarket, the world's largest online prediction market, ruled the operation did not meet its definition of an invasion, triggering outrage from users who had wagered that Washington would deploy troops into the oil-rich nation.
The disputed market asked whether the US would 'invade Venezuela' by specific dates.
When US special forces captured Venezuelan ruling couple, many users believed the bet had clearly resolved.
But Polymarket determined that the mission which resulted in the seizure of Maduro and his wife was a 'snatch-and-extract' operation and did not on its own qualify as an invasion.
The platform defined an invasion as 'US military operations intended to establish control.'
Polymarket added that President Donald Trump's statement that the United States would 'run' Venezuela during negotiations also did not meet the threshold for an invasion.
The decision has fueled accusations the company is redefining outcomes to deny payouts.
The ruling comes as Maduro faces federal charges in New York.
The disputed wager in question asked: 'Will the US invade Venezuela by...?' and offered bettors a range of dates.
When US special forces captured Venezuelan ruling couple, many users believed the bet had clearly resolved but after being provided with an explanation as to why their claims were denied Polymarket's user base was seething.
'So it's not an invasion because they did it quickly and not many people died?' one bettor wrote on Polymarket's site.
Another called the platform 'polyscam.'
Others wrote sarcastically that US forces must have used a 'teleportation device' to extract Venezuela's leadership without invading the country.
'Polymarket has descended into sheer arbitrariness,' one user fumed.
Reports of explosions in Caracas began spilling in around 1am, just a few hours after the mystery trader doubled down their bets
'Words are redefined at will, detached from any recognized meaning, and facts are simply ignored,' the person wrote.
'That a military incursion, the kidnapping of a head of state, and the takeover of a country are not classified as an invasion is plainly absurd.'
The anger was fueled further by reports of bloodshed during the operation.
Dozens were reportedly killed in the special forces raid with one Venezuelan official citing a death toll of 80.
Polymarket operates as a peer-to-peer marketplace rather than a traditional sportsbook, meaning users bet against one another rather than 'the house.'
In theory, the company does not profit directly from ruling one way or another but the controversy has reignited suspicion about who benefits when definitions are suddenly narrowed after the fact.
Some users openly questioned whether the ruling favored large, well-capitalized traders, often referred to as 'whales', at the expense of smaller bettors.
There is no public evidence to support that claim, but there is also no transparency around who held the winning positions.
The dispute comes just days after Polymarket faced scrutiny over a separate wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power.
In that market, three traders reportedly made roughly $620,000 by correctly betting 'yes' against long odds.
Observers noted that the winning bets came from newly created accounts, sparking suspicions of insider knowledge.
On December 27, they bought $96 worth of contracts that would pay off if the US invaded Venezuela by January 31, according to Polymarket data.
Over the next week, they continued buying thousands of dollars worth of similar contracts that would yield large payouts.
On January 2, between 8.38pm and 9.58pm, the user more than doubled their overall wager, betting more than $20,000 on the same kinds of contracts they had been purchasing since the end of December.
At 10.46pm, less than an hour after the final bets were placed, President Trump ordered the military operation. Around 1am, the first reports of explosions rocking Caracas began to spill in.
Observers have speculated that the well-timed wager was a result of insider trading.
The mystery user, whose default screen name was a blockchain address made up of a string of numbers and letters, made almost $410,000 in profit off around $34,000 of bets
As of Sunday, Polymarket's odds suggested the controversy had barely moved the needle. The site showed just a 3% chance that the United States would invade Venezuela by January 31
The contracts the user had purchased were priced at a measly eight cents apiece, which meant the general consensus among Polymarket betters was that there was just an eight percent chance of the US invading Venezuela and capturing Maduro.
The controversy prompted Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) to propose legislation that would ban government officials from trading on prediction markets.
The identities of the winning traders remain unknown.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in December, before the Maduro bet controversy, Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan said that there is self-regulation against insider trading on his platform.
'The moment there is a suspected insider, it's pointed out on X, and it's visible on Polymarket immediately. So it's not like it's done in darkness,' Coplan said.
Complicating matters further are Polymarket's political connections.
Donald Trump Jr.'s private investment firm bought a stake in the company last year, and he joined Polymarket's advisory board shortly before the platform received approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to resume operations in the United States.
As of Sunday, Polymarket's odds suggested the controversy had barely moved the needle. The site showed just a 3% chance that the United States would invade Venezuela by January 31.