Prediction Market Giants Clash as Competition Between Kalshi and Polymarket Heats Up

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-02Actualizado a 2026-04-02

Resumen

The competition between US-based prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket has intensified, with both companies exchanging sharp public criticisms. Kalshi, which is regulated by the CFTC, launched an ad campaign in Washington, D.C., with slogans such as "We don’t do death markets," directly targeting Polymarket’s offshore operations and its controversial contracts related to military conflicts and sensitive events. Kalshi accused Polymarket of being "irresponsible, dangerous, and non-compliant," while Polymarket responded by calling for fact-based discussions and emphasizing its commitment to market integrity. The dispute highlights fundamental differences in their regulatory approaches and comes amid growing scrutiny over insider trading and ethical concerns in the prediction market industry, which has seen combined weekly volumes nearing $6 billion.

Written by: Yash Roy, Bloomberg

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

This is an advertisement placed by the American prediction market platform Kalshi at a Washington bus stop in March. With the slogan 'We Don't Do Death Markets,' it emphasizes its own federally regulated compliance to attack its competitor Polymarket's unregulated overseas operations and sensitive contracts related to military conflicts. Photographer: Daniel Hoyle / Bloomberg

As competition in the prediction market industry intensifies and this emerging field faces strict regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Kalshi and Polymarket are exchanging heavy accusations in a fierce confrontation.

The two platforms have frequently clashed before, but recent conflicts have escalated completely — Kalshi launched a highly targeted advertising campaign, and its employees have publicly criticized Polymarket, with the rhetoric from both sides becoming increasingly heated.

Benjamin Freeman, who is responsible for political and election markets at Kalshi, posted on social media on Monday, stating: 'Polymarket's irresponsible, dangerous, and allegedly违规的行为 (non-compliant behavior) is threatening the survival of legitimate prediction markets in the United States.'

This accusation quickly sparked a fierce war of words between the two companies.

Polymarket responded in a statement: 'We welcome competition but believe discussions should be based on facts. Misleading the public only harms the entire industry and its participants.'

Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana directly retorted: 'It's laughable to hear this from a company whose vast majority of trading volume is on an unregulated overseas platform, with rules that even allow for 'death markets'.'

(Note: Death Markets is a general term in the prediction market industry for trading contracts that directly/indirectly bet on events related to death, military conflicts, assassinations, etc., also known as 'assassination markets.')

This internal strife erupts at a critical time when Polymarket and Kalshi are vying for the leading position in the rapidly growing prediction market industry. This industry provides Americans with a new way to bet on various events, from sports games to election outcomes. According to data compiled by a user on Dune Analytics, the two startups have recently set new records in weekly trading volume, with their combined nominal trading volume recently approaching $6 billion.

Prediction Market Trading Volume Reaches Billions

Weekly nominal trading volume of Polymarket and Kalshi. Note: Data is for the week ending March 9th. Source: @datadashboards on Dune Analytics

The core of the dispute lies in the fundamental differences in the establishment models and operating rules of the trading platforms. The Kalshi platform is headquartered in the United States and is regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); Polymarket's main trading platform is based overseas.

Polymarket leverages its overseas operational advantage to list contracts related to military conflicts, including those involving Iran. Kalshi directly states that such products are both unethical and illegal.

One of Kalshi's advertisements bluntly states: 'We Don't Do Death Markets.'

Earlier this week, this set of marketing ads from Kalshi, in the form of a 'platform rules list,' began appearing at bus stops and subway stations in Washington.

One of them reads: 'Rule 1: We ban insider trading because Kalshi is a federally regulated U.S. exchange.' In the eyes of industry observers, the subtext of this statement is obvious: Polymarket's main platform is not under the jurisdiction of U.S. regulators.

'BETS OFF Act' signage, Representative Greg Casar and Senator Chris Murphy speak at a press conference regarding the 'Betting on Events with Security and Federal Functions Off-Limits (BETS OFF) Act'. Photographer: Stephanie Reynolds / Bloomberg

Following allegations that insider information was used to improperly bet on U.S. military actions in Iran and Venezuela, Congress has turned its focus to the issue of insider trading in prediction markets. In response, Kalshi has taken a tougher stance, imposing fines, suspending trading, and other penalties on users it deems to have violated rules; Polymarket has been relatively permissive, though with increased regulatory attention, the platform recently announced its own insider trading rules.

Kalshi spokesperson Diana said: 'We want to make these significant differences clear. Many people in the market currently conflate Kalshi and Polymarket and confuse the different paths we have taken regarding regulatory compliance.'

In addition to its overseas main platform, Polymarket also has a U.S.-regulated platform, which is still in the testing phase. The company stated in a declaration that both platforms enforce 'the same strict market integrity standards, including prohibitions on insider trading and market manipulation, active monitoring of trading, and ongoing communication and cooperation with regulators and law enforcement agencies.'

A trade on the Polymarket website regarding whether the Houthis will attack Israeli territory. Photographer: Gabby Jones / Bloomberg

Just a few months ago, Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara was still trying to ease tensions between the two rivals. In a social media post last October, she expressed hope that the industry could move beyond 'destructive infighting' and develop together.

Now, that vision seems largely shattered.

The conflict became even more difficult to reconcile after Kalshi advisor and former U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner Brian Quintenz joined the fray. In response to reports that prosecutors are investigating insider trading, Brian Quintenz publicly hinted on social media this week that the investigation should focus on Polymarket. When contacted by Bloomberg News, he declined to comment further.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main point of contention between Kalshi and Polymarket?

AThe core dispute revolves around their operational models and regulatory compliance. Kalshi, a US-based platform regulated by the CFTC, criticizes Polymarket for its primarily offshore, unregulated main platform and for offering controversial 'death market' contracts related to military conflicts.

QWhat specific advertising campaign did Kalshi launch against Polymarket?

AKalshi launched a targeted ad campaign in Washington, D.C., bus and metro stations. One ad stated, 'We don't do death markets,' emphasizing its federal regulation and taking a direct shot at Polymarket's offshore operations and sensitive contracts.

QHow did Polymarket respond to the allegations from Kalshi?

APolymarket responded with a statement saying, 'We welcome competition, but believe discussions should be based on facts,' and argued that misleading the public harms the entire industry and its participants. They also stated that both their offshore and US-regulated platforms maintain the same strict market integrity standards.

QWhat recent legislative focus is mentioned in the article that impacts prediction markets?

AThe article mentions that Congress has turned its focus to the issue of insider trading in prediction markets, particularly following allegations that people used inside information to bet on U.S. military actions in Iran and Venezuela. This has led to the proposed 'BETS OFF Act'.

QWhat was the reported combined recent trading volume for Kalshi and Polymarket?

AAccording to user-compiled data on Dune Analytics, the two startups recently set new weekly trading volume records, with their combined nominal trading volume approaching $6 billion.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手Hace 4 hora(s)

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

Nvidia's recent announcement to issue at least $20 billion in senior notes, despite holding a strong cash position with over $48.6 billion in free cash flow last quarter, is not a sign of financial need. Instead, it represents a strategic move to leverage its high credit rating (recently upgraded to AA by S&P) to secure low-cost, long-term debt. This capital will support long-term AI infrastructure investments, data centers, R&D, supply chain prepayments, and strategic investments, while allowing the company to continue aggressive shareholder returns through stock buybacks and dividends. The decision reflects a mature capital management strategy: using debt to finance long-term growth assets is more efficient and less dilutive to shareholders than equity financing. It signals that Nvidia, like other tech giants (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon), is entering a new phase of heavy AI capital expenditure, shifting from a pure growth story to a story about capital allocation, credit strength, and long-term ecosystem positioning. The key question for investors is whether Nvidia can maintain its high cash flow generation and ensure that returns from these AI investments justify the cost of capital over the long term. The bond issuance amplifies its expansion capabilities but also ties its valuation more closely to the broader AI investment cycle's sustainability and profitability.

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

Liberland's congress has voted to remove Technology Secretary Dorian Stern Vukotić, following a resolution accusing him of attempting to hijack the Liberland.org domain, removing administrative multisig protections, blocking the president from voting, and launching unauthorized tokens. The incident serves as a case study in blockchain governance, highlighting risks that go beyond smart contracts to include control over domains, admin keys, and off-chain authority. For the crypto industry, it underscores the need to scrutinize decentralization claims against operational realities, where a small group can still compromise governance. The story reflects a broader market shift where infrastructure security and governance are becoming as critical as price action. Editorial framing should treat the development as a verified information signal about governance risks, avoiding overstatement of Liberland's legal status and leaving room for follow-up evidence.

bitcoinistHace 5 hora(s)

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

bitcoinistHace 5 hora(s)

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

No one truly teaches you how to do research. You're often given a desk, a pre-selected problem, and vague instructions to "create something new." Consequently, many people reverse-engineer the job based on visible outputs—papers, posts, announcements—learning only how to *appear* like a researcher rather than how to *become* one. True research capability is built from stacking small, trainable skills, nearly all of which can be developed through deliberate practice. **Pick Your Own Problem:** Most researchers absorb problems from advisors or trends, lacking the underlying reasoning. Choosing a problem you genuinely care about, as John Schulman advises, leads to original work. Develop "taste" like a muscle: predict experiment outcomes, guess paper results from methods, and track which findings remain important over time. **Upgrade Your Inputs:** Relying on shared reading lists (arXiv hot lists, filtered group chats) leads to unoriginal conclusions. Undervalued old literature often holds crucial insights (e.g., MoE, LSTM, backpropagation). Richard Sutton's "The Bitter Lesson" or Claude Shannon's 1952 talk on creative thinking are more predictive than lengthy modern surveys. Breadth matters as much as depth: draw from neuroscience, mechanism design, hardware knowledge, and honest statistics. Read papers directly, especially appendices and limitations sections. **Write Everything Down:** As Paul Graham noted, writing exposes flaws in seemingly mature ideas. Writing is the cheapest defense against self-deception. Following Feynman's principle, Darwin programmatically wrote down facts contradicting his theory to combat memory bias. Maintain a detailed log of hypotheses, setups, predictions, results, and updated understandings. Reviewing past logs fosters essential humility.

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros