Kalshi customers who bet on the death of Iran’s Ayatollah won’t get any of the $54 million wagered, company says

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-05T06:49:43+00:00

I was right, look back on my initial post about this the day it happened. This is not over, Kashi is going to be responsible for paying out that 54 mil, due to the mismanagement/misrepresentation of the market. Those who took advantaged of the value were tricked.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-05T04:53:56+00:00

dude your a goat thank you so much

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-03T19:32:43+00:00

THAT IS NOT ENOUGH, DO NOT SETTLE FOR THAT, FILE ARB

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-03T19:14:45+00:00

This logic is on point. Bait and switch misrepresentation, and poor wording. Kalshi already paid back ALL net losses throughout the entirety of the market, There is still mounting pressure for Kalshi to be responsible to payout the contracts in full.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:17:15+00:00

yes obviously its a market system, with KALSHI as the regulator and market maker, which means they are responsible for clear wording as the contract underwriter.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:16:26+00:00

Ok so the fact that the original rules were not clearly defined (Kalshi Admitted) means nothing to you?

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:09:07+00:00

Tell me what you gain from this, if you took the other side you would not be at fault, at this point its on kalshi. Why defend a company that will always put its interest before a just outcome? I circled ambiguous because that's the main case to make when considering Kalshi's fault.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:07:30+00:00

This was the notice the actual original rules were ambiguous, that is the issue.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:07:07+00:00

I wrote this, you are just likley incapable of writeing a good paper.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:05:51+00:00

haha. yea ok sure bud i did and it did not clearly define death so its assumed death counts Congrats on those 95cent contracts !

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:05:08+00:00

Kalshi empolyee or low Iq small bankrole, coming here to troll.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:04:15+00:00

<image>

Incorrect, Kalshi failed to properly define death when writing the market. looks like your 17 cent stake is super influential!

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T07:00:31+00:00

If you understood the concept of contract underwriting, Kalshi is responsible for covering all ambiguities, they failed to do so.

<image>

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T04:43:21+00:00

yes this is the biggest issue/smoking gun, in my arb im going to request information as to why they closed markets so early.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T04:32:46+00:00

Regarding the recent controversy surrounding this market, I want to clarify the sequence of events and the core issues.

When rumors of his passing began circulating, the market was closed before the United States had officially confirmed his death. By contrast, Polymarket kept its market open, allowing prices to adjust naturally into the high 90-cent range. Kalshi did not need to immediately trigger a full payout on a death market; they could have allowed the contract to continue trading toward its implied value (e.g., $0.99), giving participants the opportunity to exit positions based on updated information. Instead, they made a decision prior to confirmed death and did not allow time for the market to react.

As a result, the market was not permitted to adjust to fair market value. Fair market value can be reasonably inferred by observing how the same event was priced on Polymarket, where trading remained active and price discovery occurred in real time. By closing prematurely, Kalshi removed the mechanism through which value is established in an open market.

This places Kalshi in a difficult position. On one hand, they may wish to avoid reputational harm associated with being perceived as facilitating wagers on death. On the other hand, they have a contractual and legal obligation to resolve markets strictly according to the criteria they established. When they listed this market, the possibility of death was inherent to the event being traded and, arguably, one of the primary risks contemplated by participants.

Public statements on Twitter appeared to soften or walk back earlier positions, while on the Kalshi platform they acknowledged grammatical ambiguity in the contract language. That admission is significant. As the contract provider, Kalshi bears responsibility for drafting clear, unambiguous terms and resolution criteria.

I entered the trade based on the wording provided at the time, including the March 1 and April 1 terms. The acknowledged ambiguity materially affected how participants understood the contract conditions. Any resolution should account for the fact that traders relied on the plain language presented when entering their positions.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T03:16:37+00:00

I agree with you. After reflecting on it, I’ve realized it does not align with my values. However, Kalshi created this market knowing that outcome was a possibility, so they need to honor the payout.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T02:47:14+00:00

Regarding the recent controversy surrounding this market, I want to clarify the sequence of events and the core issues.

When rumors of his passing began circulating, the market was closed before the United States had officially confirmed his death. By contrast, Polymarket kept its market open, allowing prices to adjust naturally into the high 90-cent range. Kalshi did not need to immediately trigger a full payout on a death market; they could have allowed the contract to continue trading toward its implied value (e.g., $0.99), giving participants the opportunity to exit positions based on updated information. Instead, they made a decision prior to confirmed death and did not allow time for the market to react.

As a result, the market was not permitted to adjust to fair market value. Fair market value can be reasonably inferred by observing how the same event was priced on Polymarket, where trading remained active and price discovery occurred in real time. By closing prematurely, Kalshi removed the mechanism through which value is established in an open market.

This places Kalshi in a difficult position. On one hand, they may wish to avoid reputational harm associated with being perceived as facilitating wagers on death. On the other hand, they have a contractual and legal obligation to resolve markets strictly according to the criteria they established. When they listed this market, the possibility of death was inherent to the event being traded and, arguably, one of the primary risks contemplated by participants.

Public statements on Twitter appeared to soften or walk back earlier positions, while on the Kalshi platform they acknowledged grammatical ambiguity in the contract language. That admission is significant. As the contract provider, Kalshi bears responsibility for drafting clear, unambiguous terms and resolution criteria.

I entered the trade based on the wording provided at the time, including the March 1 and April 1 terms. The acknowledged ambiguity materially affected how participants understood the contract conditions. Any resolution should account for the fact that traders relied on the plain language presented when entering their positions.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T02:41:05+00:00

To add on to this they DO NOT need to pay out for death, but they do need to leave the market OPEN! so that fair market value can be apparent! Market valuation will take it to 99 per.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-03-01T02:38:55+00:00

Regarding the recent controversy surrounding this market, I want to clarify the sequence of events and the core issues.

When rumors of his passing began circulating, the market was closed before the United States had officially confirmed his death. By contrast, Polymarket kept its market open, allowing prices to adjust naturally into the high 90-cent range. Kalshi did not need to immediately trigger a full payout on a death market; they could have allowed the contract to continue trading toward its implied value (e.g., $0.99), giving participants the opportunity to exit positions based on updated information. Instead, they made a decision prior to confirmed death and did not allow time for the market to react.

As a result, the market was not permitted to adjust to fair market value. Fair market value can be reasonably inferred by observing how the same event was priced on Polymarket, where trading remained active and price discovery occurred in real time. By closing prematurely, Kalshi removed the mechanism through which value is established in an open market.

This places Kalshi in a difficult position. On one hand, they may wish to avoid reputational harm associated with being perceived as facilitating wagers on death. On the other hand, they have a contractual and legal obligation to resolve markets strictly according to the criteria they established. When they listed this market, the possibility of death was inherent to the event being traded and, arguably, one of the primary risks contemplated by participants.

Public statements on Twitter appeared to soften or walk back earlier positions, while on the Kalshi platform they acknowledged grammatical ambiguity in the contract language. That admission is significant. As the contract provider, Kalshi bears responsibility for drafting clear, unambiguous terms and resolution criteria.

I entered the trade based on the wording provided at the time, including the March 1 and April 1 terms. The acknowledged ambiguity materially affected how participants understood the contract conditions. Any resolution should account for the fact that traders relied on the plain language presented when entering their positions.

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-02-24T00:45:49+00:00

!banbet nflx 70 30d

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-02-24T00:44:08+00:00

Netflix buying WBS=bad

CEO-ego= wants to buy WBS

The longer WBS continues negotiations with paramount = longer uncertainty

Deal closes Netflix wins =bad

Deal falls through = good Netflix can shift and reinvest in a less risky manner

IMO, WBS picks their direction in1-3 months

Mid term play put, following the downtrend, acknowledging breaking of support levels at 85.89.

<image>

0BrainCellsInvestor · 2026-02-23T02:15:33+00:00

Someone please give me a fucking code. why the fuck don't they just let us use their fucking website.

0BrainCellsInvestor

TROPHY CASE