Kalshi Challenges Report Over “Significant Flaws”
United States.- July 16, 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Kalshi has strongly criticised a recent Roosevelt Institute report on prediction markets, arguing that the study contains “significant flaws” that undermine its main conclusions.
Published on 7 July as the first instalment of a four-part research series, the report claimed that ordinary Kalshi users have lost more than US$500 million since the platform launched in July 2021 through May 2026.
Kalshi rejected those findings, stating that the analysis is based on an incorrect methodology. According to the company, the institute mistakenly interpreted the maker and taker categories used in the platform’s API as referring to professional and casual users, when in fact these terms simply describe trading functions within an exchange.
The company also disputed the study’s treatment of digital wallets as individual user accounts, arguing that this methodological approach distorted the final results.
Kalshi further rejected comparisons between prediction markets and casinos, emphasising that its platform operates as an exchange where users trade contracts with one another rather than betting directly against a house with a built-in mathematical edge.
The Roosevelt Institute, however, argued that retail participants compete against professional traders equipped with more sophisticated tools and strategies, creating a structural disadvantage for ordinary users.
Kalshi also accused the report of demonstrating a bias in favour of the casino and sports betting industry, claiming that gambling industry lobbying is beginning to shape the political and regulatory debate surrounding prediction markets.
The dispute comes amid rapid growth in the sector. According to data cited by the Roosevelt Institute, Kalshi and Polymarket reached a combined trading volume of US$24.2 billion in April 2026, compared with US$1.8 billion one year earlier. Some forecasts suggest the market could exceed US$1 trillion in trading volume by 2030.
Prediction markets in the United States are regulated as derivatives exchanges under the supervision of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). However, several state regulators argue that contracts tied to sporting events effectively function as betting products without being subject to the same licensing, taxation and compliance requirements imposed on traditional sportsbooks.
The dispute between Kalshi and the Roosevelt Institute once again places at the centre of the debate an unresolved question: whether prediction markets should remain under federal oversight as financial instruments or instead become subject to state gambling and sports betting regulations.
Edited by: @_fonta
