The Hormuz market isn't trading Iran.

It's trading UMA's resolution committee.
$10M volume. 3 days of 20→80→25→70→45→65% swings. Every single move maps to one question: which resolution path wins?
Original rules: "consensus of credible reporting that Iran halted traffic." Easy YES. Market runs to 80.
Then March 1, someone quietly drops an "Additional Context" update — defining "severely restrict" as an 80%+ drop in IMF PortWatch's 7-day moving average of commercial transits.
Now you have two legally valid paths to YES that give opposite outcomes in the same world state:
Path A: Reuters/AP write "Iran closes Hormuz" → consensus of credible reporting → YES
Path B: PortWatch shows no 80% traffic drop (convoy routes exist, strait is large) → NO
Whales are split not because they disagree about Iran. They're betting on which paragraph a 3-person UMA committee reads first.
Trump tweets something diplomatic → market dumps to 45. IRGC announces wartime conditions → market pumps to 70. Neither move is wrong. Both are just noise on top of the real uncertainty, which is entirely procedural.
This is the Polymarket trap nobody talks about: "Additional Context" fields are resolver discretion dressed up as clarification.
The moment you see one, the market stops being about the event and starts being about interpretation.
No edge here.