On April 7, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. On April 21, one day before the ceasefire was set to expire, he issued a statement on Truth Social declaring the ceasefire extended indefinitely.

Subsequently, Reuters, AP, BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Wall Street Journal all reported the extension of the ceasefire. Iran’s foreign minister confirmed the decision via Twitter.

In the real world, the ceasefire has been persisting under strict lockdown conditions.

Yet on Polymarket, the market asking “Will the U.S.-Iran ceasefire be extended before April 22?” currently shows a “yes” probability of just 0.1%.

This means that while the global community knows the ceasefire has been extended, the world’s largest prediction market believes it has not.

Markets like this—rife with controversy—are prime targets for bets offering potentially hundreds of times returns: some traders place wagers ranging from $1 to tens of thousands of dollars, chasing a speculative wealth fantasy.

Within the past 24 hours, one account purchased $100,000 worth of “yes,” with potential profits exceeding $50 million.

The controversy in this market was embedded in its rules from the start.

Polymarket defines “ceasefire extension” as requiring either a clear public declaration from both parties or a “consensus of overwhelming credible media coverage.” The U.S. declaration comes directly from Trump’s Truth Social post.

The issue lies with Iran. Iran’s official statement used the word “acknowledged,” rather than the required “mutually agreed” per the rulebook.

This wording discrepancy has caused a $150 million trading volume divergence: “yes” holders argue that Trump’s statement combined with universal media consensus constitutes an overwhelming agreement; “no” holders maintain that Iran did not directly confirm the extension in its own voice, so the condition remains unmet.

On April 24, Polymarket officially stepped in, adding a clarification on the market page: As of 23:59 on April 22, no ceasefire extension meeting the “yes” criteria existed.

With official endorsement, market sentiment shifted abruptly, and the probability plummeted below 1%.

Following this, a wave of sophisticated traders familiar with platform mechanics and timing strategies emerged: buying “no” under the official determination became nearly risk-free high-yield speculation.

Among them, the third-ranked “no” holder is a user named NotBakerMcKenzie, betting approximately $8.5 million. Baker McKenzie is a top-tier global law firm headquartered in Chicago, providing compliance legal services to platforms like Polymarket and possessing deep understanding of oracle settlement mechanisms and platform rules.

Using the firm’s identity to interpret rules and placing real capital behind the bet, this move appears to signal to the entire trading community the market’s ultimate settlement direction.

However, Pedro, the top-ranked “yes” holder, clearly holds a different view: Polymarket’s official statement serves only as reference for settlement; the final result will be determined solely by UMA’s decentralized oracle voting mechanism. As long as UMA token stakers vote “yes,” the official narrative doesn’t matter.

This is precisely what Pedro is betting on: risking $100,000 for a chance at over $50 million in potential return—extremely favorable odds.

Pedro’s Polymarket profile includes a link leading to a website for a token he launched himself—$pedros-coin. Though the site features unfinished architecture and crude design, the token’s mechanics stand out.

$pedros-coin cannot be bought via conventional meme coin rules. The only way to acquire it is through action: earn 1 token per hour of live stream viewing, 20 tokens per social media post. All acquisition methods are tightly bound to viral network propagation.

The token’s value depends entirely on the “yes” probability in the ceasefire extension market. If the probability reaches 100%, each token is worth $1; if the final settlement is “no,” the token becomes worthless.

Pedro’s position in this market perfectly functions as collateral for the token: he holds 50 million “yes” shares, with potential payouts exceeding $50 million—only payable if he wins.

When combined, these elements reveal a clear logic: Pedro uses $pedros-coin to align the interests of hundreds of individuals with his own “yes” position, incentivizing them to continuously amplify his message across the network, aiming to generate massive public pressure before oracle voting, convincing as many stakers as possible that the market “should settle as yes.”

From a narrative perspective, this mobilization mechanism embodies a peculiar web3 spirit—Pedro invests over $100,000 of his own capital, rallying retail traders to unite through action-based tokens, challenging the established reality shaped by large players’ capital sweeps, and betting on a real-world outcome that actually exists: a genuine ceasefire.

Yet, another layer emerges within Pedro’s Discord channel, complicating the purity of the movement.

On the morning of April 30, a user named Euan posted in Pedro’s publicly listed Discord channel: “As you can see, I hold the most wealthy UMA wallet. Will accept bribes to manipulate the vote toward ‘yes.’ DMs open.”

The post included two screenshots: one showing ownership of 2.9 million UMA tokens, and another displaying a profile for the account borntoolate.eth.

2.9 million UMA tokens represent roughly 16.4% of the current total staked supply of 17.71 million.

One screenshot alone is already intimidating—but the name “borntoolate” carries equal weight among long-time Polymarket players.

In March 2025, the Polymarket market “Will Ukraine agree to Trump’s mineral resources deal by end-March?” was settled as “yes” by oracle voting despite ongoing negotiations and no formal signing.

This was the infamous Polymarket oracle attack event, initiated by borntoolate. With low overall voting participation, borntoolate leveraged substantial UMA holdings and staking to disproportionately influence the vote, forcing a “yes” outcome contrary to facts.

UMA’s security model hinges on the assumption that “attack cost exceeds attack gain”—an attacker must buy enough UMA tokens to control voting, and this cost should exceed the profit gained. Yet the entire UMA protocol’s total market cap is currently only $40 million.

We cannot verify whether Euan is indeed borntoolate. But if the settlement result flips again, Pedro’s $100,000 bet could yield over $50 million in returns.

To date, the UMA oracle voting results appear highly conclusive. Among publicly revealed votes, “no” votes exceed 10.27 million, while “yes” votes number just 25.

The sole uncertainty lies in the approximately 8.69 million UMA tokens whose votes remain undisclosed. If more than 2.33 million of these vote “no,” consensus will be reached and the market will settle as “no.” If this threshold is not met, the round will be deemed invalid, and the dispute will carry over to the next round—the window Pedro is genuinely waiting for.

As of this writing, Pedro continues purchasing “yes” positions.

Source: BlockBeats