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

TheNewsCrypto2026-03-02 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-02 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit1 saat önce

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit1 saat önce

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手1 saat önce

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手1 saat önce

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit3 saat önce

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit3 saat önce

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手5 saat önce

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手5 saat önce

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit6 saat önce

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit6 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures