专访 Kalshi 联创：起诉政府，不做暗杀、战争市场，Kalshi 如何拿下合规预测市场运营？
专访 Kalshi 联创：起诉政府，不做暗杀、战争市场，Kalshi 如何拿下合规预测市场运营？
Over the past few years, prediction markets have moved from a niche financial experiment to the center of debates across technology, finance, and public policy. The appeal is obvious: “betting on the future” is inherently compelling. But the deeper reason for the renewed attention is more structural—social media amplifies noise, polling repeatedly misses inflection points, and public trust in legacy information systems keeps eroding.
In that context, one question matters to both crypto natives and traditional market participants: can market prices function as a signal that is closer to reality than opinions, emotions, and narrative warfare? This theme sits at the heart of a conversation hosted by John Collison (translated/compiled by Peggy; edited by BlockBeats), featuring insights from a Kalshi co-founder on why the company chose to fight regulators in court, how it draws hard ethical lines (no assassination or war markets), and what “compliance-first” looks like when your product is literally a marketplace for uncertain futures.
This article reframes the discussion through a blockchain lens: what Kalshi’s regulatory path tells us about the next phase of crypto prediction markets, and what builders and users should learn as on-chain finance collides with real-world constraints.
1) Kalshi’s core idea: turn “events” into regulated financial contracts
Kalshi operates as a U.S. regulated marketplace for event contracts—simple “Yes/No” instruments that settle based on an objectively verifiable outcome. Crucially, Kalshi is not positioning itself as a crypto protocol, but as a federally regulated exchange under the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Kalshi has publicly highlighted its CFTC status as a Designated Contract Market (DCM), which places it inside the U.S. derivatives rulebook rather than the “grey zone” where many prediction products historically lived (Kalshi announcement on CFTC DCM designation).
From a crypto perspective, it helps to view Kalshi as the “regulated cousin” of on-chain prediction markets:
- On-chain systems often prioritize permissionless access, crypto collateral, and transparent settlement logic.
- Kalshi prioritizes regulatory permissioning, market surveillance, and a compliance framework aligned with U.S. derivatives law.
That contrast is exactly why Kalshi’s story matters to crypto: it shows what it takes to make prediction markets durable in the face of regulators—and what trade-offs come with that durability.
2) “Sue the government”: why litigation became part of the product strategy
Prediction markets are not just a product—they are a regulatory claim. Kalshi’s stance, as reflected in the broader public record, is that event contracts can be treated as legitimate financial instruments under federal oversight, rather than being forced into state-by-state gambling frameworks.
That theory has been tested in court. A key flashpoint was political event contracts: in September 2023, the CFTC blocked Kalshi from listing certain U.S. election-related contracts. Kalshi challenged that decision, and in September 2024 a federal district court ruled in Kalshi’s favor, vacating the CFTC order and allowing the contracts to be listed (see a legal case summary from counsel: Milbank on the September 6, 2024 ruling). In October 2024, an appeals court denied the CFTC’s attempt to pause that outcome while the appeal proceeded, leaving Kalshi “clear, for now” to offer those markets (Axios recap).
For crypto builders, the lesson is blunt: regulatory clarity is often downstream of adversarial process. Many crypto teams treat “compliance” as a checklist. Kalshi treated it as a long game—where court precedent, statutory interpretation, and agency boundaries directly shape what products can exist.
3) The bright line: no assassination, no war—because the law (and legitimacy) demands it
Kalshi’s public posture emphasizes that it will not list markets tied to assassination, war, or similarly sensitive categories. This is not only an ethical choice; it also maps closely to how U.S. commodities law treats event contracts.
Multiple legal analyses of Kalshi v. CFTC point to the Commodity Exchange Act’s “Special Rule,” which allows the CFTC to prohibit event contracts involving certain enumerated categories, including terrorism, assassination, and war, as well as gaming or other activity deemed contrary to the public interest (Brownstein analysis of the Special Rule and the dispute).
This is where the blockchain conversation becomes more nuanced:
- On-chain prediction markets can technically list anything—any question, any outcome, any collateral—because permissionless systems are optimized for neutrality and composability.
- But neutrality is not the same as legitimacy. If a market drifts into “assassination contracts,” it becomes a reputational and regulatory accelerant for the entire category.
Kalshi’s approach suggests a pragmatic path for the broader ecosystem: if prediction markets are going to become mainstream financial infrastructure, they must be designed so that market selection, settlement rules, and enforcement mechanisms can withstand both legal scrutiny and social backlash.
4) Compliance is not a press release—it’s market structure
In crypto, “trust minimization” often means pushing risk to code and incentives. In regulated markets, “trust minimization” also includes institutional controls: surveillance, investigations, reporting, and enforcement.
The CFTC has recently underscored that prediction markets are not a free-for-all—even when listed on regulated venues. In February 2026, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement issued an advisory following enforcement cases involving fraud and misuse of nonpublic information tied to event contracts traded on KalshiEX (CFTC press release on the enforcement advisory).
From a product and operations standpoint, “running a compliant prediction market” tends to mean:
- Clear contract design: outcomes must be objectively determinable (to reduce oracle-like ambiguity).
- Market surveillance: detect manipulation and correlated-position abuse.
- Participant controls: identity and access constraints (the opposite of permissionless).
- Dispute handling: credible escalation paths when settlement is contested.
- Regulator-facing reporting: ongoing obligations that most DeFi protocols are not built to satisfy today.
Crypto teams building prediction primitives (or any “real-world outcome” product) should recognize that the hardest part is rarely the AMM math or matching engine—it’s the operational discipline required to keep a market credible when money is on the line.
5) The 2025–2026 collision: prediction markets vs. state gambling enforcement
Even with federal oversight, prediction markets are increasingly colliding with U.S. state-level gambling regimes—especially as products expand into sports-style contracts.
In March 2026, Arizona escalated its fight by filing criminal charges against Kalshi, arguing the platform operated illegal gambling within the state—while Kalshi argued it is properly regulated at the federal level. Coverage framed it as a widening state-versus-federal jurisdiction battle with major implications for how sports-style event contracts are treated in the U.S. (AP report, Axios follow-up).
This matters to crypto users for a simple reason: jurisdiction is becoming the “hidden oracle.” It can override product intent, user access, and liquidity flow regardless of whether settlement is on-chain or off-chain.
If you are building or using blockchain-based prediction markets in 2026, assume that:
- Regulatory pressure will target distribution (apps, front-ends, on-ramps), not just smart contracts.
- The line between “financial innovation” and “gaming” will be litigated in public.
- Compliance narratives will increasingly emphasize consumer protection and market integrity, not just KYC.
6) What crypto prediction markets can learn from Kalshi
A) Contract design is governance
In DeFi, governance votes can change parameters; in prediction markets, the question itself is a parameter with legal and moral weight. Kalshi’s refusal to list certain categories is a reminder that “ask anything” is not a sustainable default if you want mainstream adoption.
B) Settlement is an oracle problem—whether or not you call it an oracle
On-chain prediction markets often rely on decentralized oracles or dispute games. Regulated markets rely on predefined sources, rulebooks, and adjudication processes. The shared challenge: ambiguity is exploitable.
C) Market integrity is a feature, not an afterthought
As prediction markets grow, the most valuable asset is not liquidity—it’s credibility. That credibility is fragile when insiders, correlated actors, or sophisticated traders can move prices in thin markets. The CFTC’s 2026 enforcement posture is a signal that integrity expectations are rising even for regulated venues (CFTC enforcement advisory).
D) The next frontier: compliant on-chain settlement
A plausible 2026–2027 direction is hybrid architecture:
- On-chain collateral (e.g., stablecoins) and programmable settlement
- Regulated market listing, surveillance, and restricted categories
- Auditable proofs for settlement inputs and dispute resolution
If this sounds like “DeFi meets TradFi,” that’s because prediction markets are one of the few categories that naturally demand both.
7) Practical takeaways for crypto users: how to think about prediction markets responsibly
Whether you use a regulated venue like Kalshi or an on-chain protocol, treat prediction markets as high-signal but not infallible:
- Prices are not truth: they are incentives + information + liquidity. Thin liquidity can exaggerate confidence.
- Beware narrative trades: markets can overreact to viral posts before fundamentals catch up.
- Understand settlement: know exactly what source and timestamp decide the outcome.
- Risk-manage like a trader, not a fan: position sizing matters more than conviction.
- Track regulatory risk: especially if you are trading from or interacting with U.S. jurisdictions where state enforcement may change quickly (AP coverage of the Arizona escalation).
Conclusion: prediction markets are becoming financial infrastructure—and crypto is part of that story
Kalshi’s journey—litigating regulators, drawing a hard line against assassination/war markets, and building within the CFTC framework—highlights a reality that crypto sometimes tries to ignore: markets that touch real-world outcomes inevitably touch real-world power.
For the blockchain industry, the opportunity is to take what works from both worlds:
- From crypto: transparency, composability, programmable settlement
- From regulated markets: discipline in contract design, integrity controls, and sustainable legitimacy
If you participate in on-chain prediction markets or any DeFi strategy tied to real-world events, one operational habit is non-negotiable: protect your private keys. A hardware wallet like OneKey helps keep signing keys offline, which is especially relevant when interacting with high-volatility markets and unfamiliar smart contracts—where the biggest risk is often not being wrong, but being compromised.
