Polymarket Withholds Payout on Venezuela Invasion Bet After US Operation

Polymarket’s decision not to pay out on its high-profile “Will the U.S. invade Venezuela” contract followed a US military operation targeting President Nicolás Maduro. The platform determined that the operation did not fulfill the contract’s definition of an invasion, leaving the market unresolved.

The contract in question required evidence of a US military offensive intended to establish control over Venezuelan territory. Polymarket stated that the recent US action to capture Maduro did not meet this standard, and therefore declined to settle or pay out on the bet.

More than $10.5 million had been wagered on the outcome of the “invasion” contract. Despite the US military presence in Venezuela, Polymarket maintained that the specific criteria outlined in the contract terms were not satisfied for an invasion resolution.

Polymarket did resolve a separate market titled “U.S. forces in Venezuela by…” in favor of “yes,” confirming that US troops had entered the country. This decision acknowledged the presence of US forces, but was considered distinct from the requirements of the invasion contract.

What the numbers show

• Over $10.5 million was wagered on the invasion contract
• An anonymous trader placed more than $32,000 on Maduro’s removal by January
• The same trader reportedly earned about $400,000 from that outcome

Polymarket’s published contract terms specified that an invasion would only be recognized if the US began a military offensive with the goal of controlling Venezuelan territory. The platform stated that public remarks by President Trump about the US “running” Venezuela did not meet these criteria on their own.

According to the platform, the distinction between military presence and an invasion was central to its decision. Polymarket applied its contract language to determine that the events did not constitute an invasion as defined for the purposes of this market.

Some traders expressed dissatisfaction with Polymarket’s ruling, stating that the platform enforced rules in an arbitrary manner and changed contract definitions after the fact. These criticisms focused on the perceived lack of clarity and consistency in how the outcome was determined.

The unresolved status of the invasion contract has left substantial funds in limbo, while related markets have been settled based on different criteria. The incident has drawn attention to how prediction markets interpret and apply their own rules in high-stakes geopolitical events.

* This article is based on publicly available information at the time of writing.