Kalshi’s CEO has defended the company’s handling of its market on whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, would be “out” of power, after backlash from users who accused the platform of unfair settlement practices.
- Kalshi says it does not allow markets that directly settle on death and structured the Khamenei contract with a “death carve-out.”
- The market was settled at the last traded price before the time of death, with fee refunds and reimbursements issued.
- Users accused the platform of unclear rules, unfair payouts and inconsistent standards, threatening to switch to competitors.
In a detailed post on X, the CEO said Kalshi does not list markets that settle directly on someone’s death.
When outcomes may involve death, he explained, the company structures rules to prevent users from profiting from it. That approach was applied to the Khamenei contract, which allowed trading on whether he would be out as Supreme Leader, a development the company argued carries major geopolitical, economic and national security implications, including potential effects on oil and commodity prices.
Under Kalshi’s rules, the market was settled at the last traded price before the time of death. All positions, regardless of when they were opened, were paid out based on that final pre-death price. In addition, the company said it reimbursed the difference for users who bought shares after the time of death at higher prices and refunded all trading fees tied to the market.
The CEO acknowledged that some users disagreed with the “death carve-out,” arguing that simpler rules without exceptions would be preferable. He said the company would work on improving how such caveats are displayed in the user interface.
However, several users pushed back sharply, accusing Kalshi of unclear rules, deleting responses, and failing to honor what they believed was a straightforward bet. Some claimed financial losses and said they would move to rival prediction markets.
Others pointed to previous contracts involving elderly public figures, arguing the company had previously allowed markets where death was a foreseeable outcome.
The dispute highlights growing tensions over how regulated U.S. prediction markets handle sensitive, mortality-linked events.
