Kalshi and Polymarket Face Scrutiny as Lawmakers Target Death-Related Betting Markets

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-03-02Actualizado a 2026-03-02

Resumen

Prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket are under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers after users placed large bets on events connected to U.S. strikes on Iran, including contracts related to the potential death of Iran’s Supreme Leader. Over $529 million was traded on related Polymarket contracts. Six Democratic senators have urged the CFTC to ban such death-related prediction contracts, citing ethical and national security risks. Kalshi’s CEO defended the platform, though the company later admitted to unclear contract wording and issued refunds. Polymarket, which operates offshore with fewer regulations, saw some users profit $1 million from well-timed bets. The situation highlights ongoing regulatory challenges in the prediction market industry.

Prediction market platforms like Kalshi andPolymarket are facing pressure after users placed larger bets on the events connected to the U.S. strikes on Iran, which include contracts linked to the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. According to the reports, more than $529 million was traded on the Polymarket contracts related to the timing of the strikes. Kalshi’s market is asking whether Khamenei has generated over $50 million in trading volume.

Lawmakers Demand Regulatory Actions

Six Democratic senators have urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to ban prediction contracts that are linked to or correlate with a person’s death. In a letter to CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, the senators argued that such markets pose a serious ethical and national security risk.

Tarek Mansour, Kalshi CEO, defended the platform, stating that Kalshi does not list contracts directly tied to death and designs rules to prevent users from profiting from someone’s death. However, confusion emerged over how the Khamenei contract was settled. Under Kalshi’s official rules filed with the CFTC, which are to be settled at the last traded price before Khamenei’s death.

Kalshi later admitted the wording was unclear. The company announced it would refund all the trading fees from the market and fully reimburse traders who placed bets after Khamenei’s death.

Polymarket, which operates outside U.S. regulations and only requires a crypto wallet to trade. Blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaos reported that six newly created accounts made about $1 million in profit by correctly betting on the strike date. Some of these bets were placed just hours before the attack occurred. This debate highlights how prediction markets should be regulated. Kalshi operates under U.S. oversight by the CFTC, while Polymarket operates offshore with fewer restrictions.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Hong Kong and Shanghai Authorities Integrate Cargo Data on Blockchain

TagsCrypto MarketCryptocurrency

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main reason Kalshi and Polymarket are facing scrutiny from lawmakers?

ALawmakers are scrutinizing them because users placed large bets on events connected to U.S. strikes on Iran, including contracts linked to the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, which they argue pose serious ethical and national security risks.

QHow much trading volume was generated on Polymarket contracts related to the timing of the U.S. strikes on Iran?

AMore than $529 million was traded on the Polymarket contracts related to the timing of the strikes.

QWhat specific action did six Democratic senators demand from the CFTC regarding prediction markets?

AThey urged the CFTC to ban prediction contracts that are linked to or correlate with a person's death.

QHow did Kalshi respond to the confusion over the settlement of its Khamenei contract?

AKalshi admitted the wording was unclear, announced it would refund all trading fees from that market, and fully reimburse traders who placed bets after Khamenei's death.

QWhat key difference in regulation is highlighted between Kalshi and Polymarket?

AKalshi operates under U.S. oversight by the CFTC, while Polymarket operates offshore with fewer restrictions and only requires a crypto wallet to trade.

Lecturas Relacionadas

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

ZEC Co-Founder Addresses Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Plans to Sunset Orchard Pool A security vulnerability was recently discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, raising key concerns. The primary questions are whether the flaw was exploited, if user funds are safe, whether users can verify the total ZEC supply, and if other similar vulnerabilities exist. Analysis suggests the vulnerability was likely not exploited prior to its discovery. It was found proactively by a researcher using specialized tools, not due to an active breach. The development team and mining pools acted quickly to contain the issue. Typical financially-motivated attacks would likely have left visible on-chain evidence, which has not been observed. User funds in Orchard are considered safe and should be recoverable, assuming no prior exploitation. If the flaw was never used, all legitimate funds can be withdrawn. The article outlines risks associated with moving funds to transparent addresses or other pools, but concludes that leaving assets in place is a reasonable option. Currently, users cannot independently verify that the total ZEC supply hasn't been inflated due to this bug. However, the planned Ironwood network upgrade is designed to resolve this. It will permanently close the Orchard pool to new deposits and internal transfers, allowing only withdrawals. This mechanism will cap total withdrawals at the amount of legitimately deposited funds, enabling anyone to cryptographically verify the supply post-upgrade. Multiple teams, including Shielded Labs, have conducted extensive audits focused on counterfeiting vulnerabilities, assisted by advanced AI tools. No additional flaws of this type have been found so far, increasing confidence that no other similar undisclosed vulnerabilities exist. In summary, evidence indicates the Orchard bug was probably not used, user funds are secure, and no other counterfeiting flaws are currently known. The upcoming Ironwood upgrade will restore users' ability to independently verify the total ZEC supply, closing this chapter.

Foresight NewsHace 3 min(s)

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

Foresight NewsHace 3 min(s)

Microsoft Announces Commercial-Grade Quantum Computer to be Completed in Three Years: Will the Boots Land?

Microsoft announces plans to build a commercially viable quantum computer by 2029, a significant acceleration from the previous industry consensus of a decade. The breakthrough is fueled by their new Majorana 2 quantum chip, which boasts a record-breaking average qubit lifetime of 20 seconds—a 1,000-fold reliability improvement over its predecessor. This leap was achieved by leveraging topological qubits, a theoretically more stable technology using Majorana zero modes, and switching the core superconducting material from aluminum to lead. Crucially, Microsoft's "Discovery" agentic AI platform accelerated the R&D process. AI agents autonomously analyzed vast experimental data, optimized manufacturing parameters (like the lead alloy composition), and solved issues like "ghost noise," dramatically speeding up experimentation. While the 20-second coherence time is a landmark, challenges remain: scaling from 12 qubits to the millions needed for practical applications, managing compilation costs, and verifying quantum results. Skeptics call for peer-reviewed data, and questions persist about whether even 20 seconds is sufficient for complex algorithms like breaking RSA encryption. The race is on with other approaches (superconducting, trapped ions), but Microsoft's confidence in its topological roadmap signals a potential shortcut to a scalable quantum future.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Microsoft Announces Commercial-Grade Quantum Computer to be Completed in Three Years: Will the Boots Land?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Is There Really a "World Cup Curse" in the Market?

Is there really a "World Cup Curse" affecting markets? Historical data shows global equity markets often underperform during the tournament. The S&P 500 has averaged negative returns of -1.5% to -2.11% across 19 World Cups since 1950, with declines in 58% of events. China's Shanghai Composite fell in 71% of tournaments since 1994. Studies confirm reduced trading activity during matches, with volumes dropping significantly, especially when a home nation plays. A team's loss can also lead to negative sentiment and selling pressure in its domestic market the next day. However, the "curse" may be partly attributed to seasonal weakness. Many tournaments are held in June-July, a historically weaker period for stocks ("Sell in May and go away"). The 2022 Qatar World Cup, held in November-December, saw a smaller drop in trading volume compared to summer events, suggesting timing plays a role. The cryptocurrency market's performance during World Cups has been mixed and largely driven by its own major catalysts (e.g., Mt. Gox hack, FTX collapse, halving cycles) rather than the tournament. Investment opportunities have shifted over time. Traditional beneficiaries like TV manufacturers have seen fading returns as streaming platforms become the core viewing channel. Classic consumer plays like beer and sportswear face challenges from changing consumption trends. Newer digital assets, like fractionalized collectible player cards on blockchain, have seen explosive growth. While gambling is a traditional sector, prediction markets are emerging. In conclusion, while a statistical correlation exists, the World Cup's direct impact on markets is likely limited and intertwined with seasonal patterns. With lower liquidity during the event, the simplest strategy for many might be to step back from trading and enjoy the games.

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

Is There Really a "World Cup Curse" in the Market?

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片