Polymarket has upgraded its oracle from OOV2 to MOOV2, introducing a whitelist system to enhance efficiency, while also sparking new controversies. (Background: Elon Musk's AI enters the prediction market: using Grok to empower Kalshi's trading revolution) (Context: Polymarket's $112 million acquisition of the exchange QCEX, U.S. compliance ticket in hand, what's next? ) Today (12), the decentralized prediction market platform Polymarket announced that it has upgraded the OOV2 oracle to MOOV2, introducing a 'proposer whitelist' system. Following the announcement, the blockchain community immediately sparked heated discussions, questioning whether this entails centralized concerns. Incentives for Efficiency In the old version of OOV2, any address could submit proposals, theoretically achieving complete openness, but in practice, problems arose frequently. Novices often lack judgment, resulting in the loss of collateral when submitting vague or incorrect markets, while experienced users struggle with settlement delays of several days. The most representative case is the NASCAR market controversy, involving about $60,000, where settlement times were repeatedly extended, slowing down capital turnover and undermining platform immediacy. Polymarket pointed out that MOOV2 grants proposal rights to whitelist members, who can coordinate topics through channels like Discord before submitting to the blockchain via trusted addresses, with an expected average settlement time reduced to within one day. From a product perspective, this change directly addresses three major pain points: reducing risks for novices, preventing collateral abuse, and enhancing market liquidity. PolymarketGuide's explanation of the new version's procedures. Controversy The current community controversy stems from whether decentralization becomes a facade when proposal power is concentrated in a few addresses. How whitelist members are generated, whether they can be publicly audited, and how accountability is added in case of errors are all focal points the community urgently wants clarified. Polymarket acknowledges in its official documents that while restrictions can improve quality, they inevitably bring about concentration risks. Supporters believe that professional proposals help keep the dispute rate within controllable limits; opponents question that if a whitelist forms a closed circle, the adjudication of real events may be swayed by a minority. Furthermore, the objection mechanism remains open to all addresses, theoretically preserving the community's power of final arbitration. However, if initial proposals deviate, the subsequent defense process may increase time and costs, ultimately undermining the original intent of 'verifiable by everyone.' The Oracle's Dilemma Oracles serve as an important bridge connecting on-chain contracts to real-world events, with transparency and efficiency often pulling in different directions. Historically, oracles including UMA in OP have faced arbitration deadlocks due to ambiguous judgments in politics, sports, and other areas. Community members constantly mention the UMA oracle issues. In the new controversy Polymarket faces regarding 'Did Xiao Ze wear a suit?' UMA's oracle design again demonstrates that 'incentives often do not produce facts/truth, but merely surface-level consensus in a game'—this topic was actually discussed by me and @WutalkWu in the latest episode of Web3 101 podcast. Polymarket relies on the UMA oracle to determine event outcomes, but this design does not necessarily guarantee the establishment of facts. Polymarket has chosen to first address speed and misuse issues, and then reduce error rates through whitelist audits, reflecting the real pressure that blockchain prediction markets must face when scaling. If it fully adheres to no-threshold policies, platform operations and capital flow may stagnate. If power is significantly centralized, it may easily shake user trust in decentralization.