Two traders have sued Polymarket over a ruling made by the prediction market. Strategy sold 32 BTC before the end of May, but the platform changed the judgment criteria from "whether the sale was completed" to "whether the sale was publicly confirmed" before settlement, and the UMA vote ultimately ruled "no." This case exposes a problem: the adjudication mechanism of decentralized prediction markets still relies on centralized decision-making in practice—UMA votes, platform rule changes, and wording adjustments in settlement explanations can all directly alter the flow of funds. Similar to the incident where BonkDAO was drained of $20 million by a malicious proposal, this is also a governance process vulnerability. When the "power to interpret the rules" is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or voting mechanisms, the shell of decentralization can become a responsibility vacuum. The underlying amount is not large, but the signal is clear: market participants are beginning to use legal means to challenge the finality of on-chain rulings. If the court determines that the platform is accountable for the ruling, the operating logic of the entire prediction market sector could be reshaped. Trading volume in prediction markets surged under the catalyst of the World Cup, and regulatory attention has already focused on them. Once adjudication disputes are classified as "platform responsibility" by the judicial system, decentralization will no longer be a shield from liability, but could instead become an entry point for tightening regulation.