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

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-03-02Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-02

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbit36 min fa

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbit36 min fa

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

The core debate surrounding the Federal Reserve's potential interest rate cuts is intensifying amid geopolitical conflict and rebounding inflation. The key question is whether high energy prices will cause persistent inflation or weaken consumer demand enough to force the Fed to cut rates. Citigroup presents a bullish case for cuts, arguing that oil supply disruptions from the Strait of Hormuz are temporary and will not lead to lasting inflationary pressure. They point to receding bond yields and oil prices as evidence the market is pricing in a short-lived shock. Citi's data also shows tightening financial conditions, a stabilizing labor market, and healthy tax returns, supporting their view that the path to lower rates remains open. Conversely, Deutsche Bank offers a starkly contrasting, more hawkish outlook. They argue the Fed's current policy is already neutral and expect rates to remain unchanged indefinitely. Their view is based on stalled disinflation progress and a shift toward more hawkish rhetoric from key Fed officials like Waller, who cited risks from prolonged Middle East conflict and tariffs. Other officials, including Williams and Hammack, signaled rates would likely stay on hold for a "considerable time." The market pricing has shifted dramatically, now forecasting zero cuts in 2026. The imminent release of the March retail sales "control group" data is highlighted as a critical test. This metric, which excludes gas station sales, will reveal if high gasoline prices are eroding consumer spending in other areas. A weak reading could support the case for imminent rate cuts, while a strong one would bolster the argument for the Fed to hold steady. This data is pivotal for determining the near-term policy path.

marsbit56 min fa

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

marsbit56 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片