Kalshi caught changing rules last minute, making users lose money

[Slow death]

In my opinion, this is the type of case that can be considered a scam, a clear case of manipulation. When they talk about someone leaving position X by day Y, they are assuming that on day Y that person will no longer be in that position, regardless of the reason. Whether they died or not is irrelevant. Of course, one shouldn't bet on someone dying, and in these cases, the bet wasn't on someone's death, but rather that someone would no longer be in the position on day X.

[AmoreJaz]

This case proves that betting with a bookmaker on events with more certain outcomes, such as sports, is much more trustworthy, as the bookmaker won't change the rules just because its players are winning.
Kalshi damaged his own reputation with this bad behavior, which serves as a warning to his users that they might be the next victims.

No, it’s not about comparing the market or the game. The focus should be on the provider or platform, because they’re the ones handling the funds and implementing the rules. Prediction markets and sports betting both operate under clear rules. As long as both bettors and the platform follow those rules, there shouldn’t be issues. But if the platform, especially the one taking the money, fails to follow them, then complaints are justified. If proven true, that would seriously damage their reputation.

By the way, how about their rival Polymarket? Do they offer the same markets? Have they changed the rules as well?

So I got interested on checking the betting lines in Polymarket, and guess what? A large amount was at stake on this - The volume reached to about $103M 

https://polymarket.com/event/khamenei-out-as-supreme-leader-of-iran-by-february-28


and there are other related betting line such as -


and their rules  -


It goes to show that this conflict is really attracting bettors and consider that the time frame is short, that makes it more attractive to bettors.

[Zlantann]

In my opinion, this is the type of case that can be considered a scam, a clear case of manipulation. When they talk about someone leaving position X by day Y, they are assuming that on day Y that person will no longer be in that position, regardless of the reason. Whether they died or not is irrelevant. Of course, one shouldn't bet on someone dying, and in these cases, the bet wasn't on someone's death, but rather that someone would no longer be in the position on day X.

I agree with you that this is a scam. Those involved in these issues should report to the relevant authorities for them to seek redress. The platforms will never forgive any user who violates their terms of service. So this case should not be swept under the carpet. If they are not cautioned or sanctioned, Kalshi or other prediction platforms might follow the same style. The most trusted prediction site is Polymarket and I have never heard or read that they engaged in such a criminal act. Kalshi would lose some customers because of this case.

[acroman08]

I checked the post from Kalshi, and someone in the comments under that post pointed out that when Jimmy Carter didn't attend Trump's inauguration because he died, they marked Jimmy Carter as "no", meaning not attending Trump's inauguration. Based on what the person posted, their reasoning for this incident is basically just BS.

[suzanne5223]

[snip]
See the above image and share your thoughts.
 
It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

Yes, the prediction market owners and operator does have the final say until certain rules is create in the future to prevent them from abusing the power of making the final say.
But, i consider the statement of the platform on the subject  ^{"they don't want their platform gambling market tied to things that have to do with the outcome of someone getting killed,"} , and i believe it to be justified.
We can both agree that Khamenei will not leave his position unless it's involve something that makes him lose his life or something so important to him.

[Wakate]

This is manipulation and I don't know why most of all these companies including predictions markets and casinos like to change their talk and make their users to look very stupid. There are different ways a leader can leave office which include death and forceful protest that involves violence to make the leader leave office. Anything apart from this is totally unacceptable by the public.

[BigBadBitBaron]

Can't argue with that, the numbers speak for themselves.

[EluguHcman]

It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

It is unfortunate that when it is said that before you risk of gambling in a platform, you should consider the reputation of the platform.
Cheating in the gambling industry is very dynamic that your trust for a regularly prediction platforms can be doubted with how they goes against their T&Cs.
Although the fact a prediction platform is expected to be reputable before it can be reliable does not mean the company can not adjust to their state of services and offers. They just have to inform the public before any site upgrade or making changes.

Some may intentionally give system services excuses or the other just to cheat players especially those who are potential of winning big.

[rbynxx]

It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

Centralization is really exhausting especially in these kind of situations. I guess it would have been a different outcome if there's a contract on all predictions being made wherein there's a specific bet is opened and it should accept what's the rule from this contract. It's where they probably fail at this point, it's a new market and I think there are a lot of future improvements and that's probably what I think it should be.

Have every prediction written in a contract wherein there's some set of rules or condition needed to be met to make the bet lost or not.

[Fortify]

See the above image and share your thoughts.
 
It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

I don't know how anyone could possibly trust them again when they do that sort of move. Guessing that they had a lot of exposure to this, especially if there was a spike after we saw unusual activity on Polymarkets. You cannot change the rules of the contract when it's obvious you've lost the bet, that's like the foundation of what is effectively a betting market. I'm guessing the full amount was refunded, because that would have been an even bigger scandal if they seized all the funds and changed the rules like that. I've barely heard of this place except in the last two days and it all seems like bad news. They clearly are making bets themselves rather than it being a proper peer to peer exchange, or they would have probably let it ride.

[Webutxo]

See the above image and share your thoughts.
 
It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

I have liked everything that came out of crypto but the last place I don't want to be is this prediction market, very useless platform. First it was this Polymarket with different predictions making people to gamble on peoples life, people are making money with war predictions while the innocent people are dying. If you can make prediction bet on peoples life that means such people are capable of killing humans that are close to them, it's not everything that has to be about money.

This Kalshi has been dragged for days now about changing a game but I tell people that if the guy has good lawyers, he can sue he hell out of that company and get compensated for changing rules they make in the first place. If a user can't make a modifications of their predictions, I don't think the predictions market should for any reason make any changes unless there a policy that says they have the right but that's a wrong place to be if that's the policy.

[Dunamisx]

Why was the option made available when they know that it doesn't worth taking risk for, I think it is high time that some gambling platform should be more considerate about what the offer and we also have to open our eyes clearly in another note to be a victims of decisions like this on any game we are playing, things like this make it hard for some gamblers to consider playing prediction markets.

[Odusko]

In my opinion, this is the type of case that can be considered a scam, a clear case of manipulation. When they talk about someone leaving position X by day Y, they are assuming that on day Y that person will no longer be in that position, regardless of the reason. Whether they died or not is irrelevant. Of course, one shouldn't bet on someone dying, and in these cases, the bet wasn't on someone's death, but rather that someone would no longer be in the position on day X.

Sometimes the casino's may have a case against the player, since death was not mentioned as a winning potential in the bet, and out of office means he may handover to another person either through election or overthrown by the military, but in this case none of that happened rather the unexpected which is his assignation.

[nelson4lov]

By 1st of April, Iran's Supreme leader will be out of office. In computer science logic, that statement or market only resolves to true or false and in this case, it's true because he would be out of office by then. They conveniently waited for months until it was close to settlement time before they provided clarity about the rules on their markets. And what's even funny is that this Kalshi team constantly tries to start a fud campaign against Polymarket.

If I had bought those contracts, I would've felt cheated and fucked. I'm glad I didn't buy.

[yahoo62278]

Never dealt with the prediction markets in any way, I do have friends that have used Kalshi to bet some NBA markets with no issues though. IMO out of office is out of office, whether by death, elected out, impeached or whatever doesn't/shouldn't matter.

[gunhell16]

It's crazy for them to do this and it's a very manipulative thing to do. Whether he's dead, in prison or even unable to continue due to health concerns, he's still out of office, so it's a win for those who made the prediction. The guy did the right thing by not going to use them ever again, I would've done the same thing if it was me because the manipulation is very obvious and says a lot about their integrity.

OP, it would've been good if you dropped a link to the tweet so we check it out ourselves. If this is true, then Kalshi scammed their clients.

I'm shaking my head a little as I read this section of the topic; I just can't imagine that even someone's death is being bet on these days, whether it's true or not that they died. Of course, what is required to confirm that they won is that the bettor should fulfill it. Because, of course, the person who won expected it, and that's what they did.

It would have been okay if it wasn't done last minute, but if it was done last minute, in which case, on the part of the winner, it's a bit unfair to him, and he'll feel like he was cheated,
and that's probably how I'll feel about the rules they changed.

[Fiatless]

By 1st of April, Iran's Supreme leader will be out of office. In computer science logic, that statement or market only resolves to true or false and in this case, it's true because he would be out of office by then. They conveniently waited for months until it was close to settlement time before they provided clarity about the rules on their markets. And what's even funny is that this Kalshi team constantly tries to start a fud campaign against Polymarket.

If I had bought those contracts, I would've felt cheated and fucked. I'm glad I didn't buy.

The rules of the game should be clear for every gambler to understand. If there are any ambiguous terms of service the gambling company should take such responsibility.  Changing rules after the games have been concluded is criminal. Casinos might be taking such actions because they want to make a profit by all means. Are they assuming that gamblers shouldn't win big, so that they can always make a high profit? A single wrong behaviour by the management of any organisation could destroy it. Many gamblers will not trust Kalshi because of these secret amendments to the rules.

[Alphakilo]

By 1st of April, Iran's Supreme leader will be out of office. In computer science logic, that statement or market only resolves to true or false and in this case, it's true because he would be out of office by then. They conveniently waited for months until it was close to settlement time before they provided clarity about the rules on their markets. And what's even funny is that this Kalshi team constantly tries to start a fud campaign against Polymarket.

If I had bought those contracts, I would've felt cheated and fucked. I'm glad I didn't buy.

The rules of the game should be clear for every gambler to understand. If there are any ambiguous terms of service the gambling company should take such responsibility.  Changing rules after the games have been concluded is criminal. Casinos might be taking such actions because they want to make a profit by all means. Are they assuming that gamblers shouldn't win big, so that they can always make a high profit? A single wrong behaviour by the management of any organisation could destroy it. Many gamblers will not trust Kalshi because of these secret amendments to the rules.

Kalshi deserve to be sued for sure and that's what would help customers have confidence in the predictions market, but with this already escalated, so many persons would definitely withdraw from the predictions market and I know that would slow down the progression of adoption of the use case of these prediction sites and their regulations, because they could change the rules anytime they see fit to make profit instead of having to incur the cost of paying out huge wins to those who made their lucky predictions.

[aioc]

This is a clear case of cheating; a last-minute change of rules just to favour their platform is considered manipulation, not to play people's winnings. Last-minute rules should have no place in a gambling platform; if it intends to cheat, it is only right that they be charged.
If they can do this in one prediction, what are the chances that they will not repeat? People should stop playing here until they resolve this issue in favour of their bettors.

[o48o]

See the above image and share your thoughts.
 
It is known that prediction market owners and operators have the upper hand in deciding how to close a market but this level of nonsense observed in situations like this draws extra attention.

A user bet that Iran's supreme leader would be out of office by April 1st and the platform changed the rules last minute to exclude death. That's a crazy take if I've ever heard one.

I understand why they would want to change it, as they technically could be seen as offering money to kill that person, if they include death (by anyone). Even if it's not that direct that's probably legally in really dangerous area.

But the fact that they offered such a bet in a first place (even if was an illegal bet in eyes of the juristiction), probably forces them to pay because contract laws and consumer protection laws.