Posts

Eleven amicus briefs are now on the docket of New Jersey's Supreme Court petition against Kalshi, and the cover of every one says it is in support of petitioners. Ten of them were entered between 2 and 8 October. Eleven to none looks like a verdict, and part of it is a calendar. Under the Court's Rule 37.2, a brief supporting a petitioner at this stage must be filed within thirty days of the case being docketed, and that time will not be extended. The petition was docketed on 8 September, which made the deadline Thursday 8 October. The same rule sets a different clock for the other side: a brief supporting a respondent follows the time allowed for the brief in opposition, and Kalshi's response is currently due on 9 November. The briefs come from gaming regulators, tribes, states, opponents of gambling expansion, the National Football League, the gaming industry, and two former officials, among them a former CFTC chairman. Anyone who wants to stand beside Kalshi files on Kalshi's timetable rather than New Jersey's.

On 25 September the Sixth Circuit became the second federal appeals court to rule against Kalshi, and the reasoning matters more than the result. Having found that Kalshi had not shown its sports contracts were swaps, the court added that Kalshi would still be unlikely to succeed if they were. The opinion, by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons for a three-judge panel with no separate opinion, decided the Ohio and Tennessee appeals together. It upheld Ohio's refusal of a preliminary injunction, vacated the injunction Kalshi had won in Tennessee, and sent both cases back. This is a preliminary ruling that binds one circuit, and the full court could still be asked to rehear it. The reading here is that the second holding changes what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can do for Kalshi's sports business. The Commission keeps the power to refuse. Within the Sixth Circuit, and against general gambling laws, approval is now an argument it has to win in court rather than a power the statute hands it. A national answer has to come from the Supreme Court or from Congress.

On the afternoon of 15 September the Senate declined to begin debating the CLARITY Act. The result was on the wire within minutes of the vote, and the result is the least interesting thing in the record. What is interesting sits in the roll call, and the roll call only means something next to a second one taken the same afternoon and a third taken fourteen months earlier. The vote was cloture on the motion to proceed, which decides whether the Senate may begin debating a bill. It is not passage and it enacts nothing. A bill that fails it has not been voted down on its merits. It has failed to reach the point at which its merits get debated. The threshold is three-fifths of senators sworn, which is sixty. The 7 September piece argued that the question of whether Kalshi's sports contracts are federally regulated derivatives or unlicensed gambling had three live routes to an answer, judicial, legislative and administrative. This is what the legislative test produced, and it produced more than a number.

On 7 April, Kalshi and Fox Corporation announced a partnership to integrate Kalshi's real-time forecasts across Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Weather and the Fox One streaming platform. Fox News reaches over 200 million people each month. That figure is worth sitting with. Kalshi, a company that did not exist eight years ago and that spent years fighting regulators in court to establish the legal legitimacy of its product, is now embedded in the largest cable news operation in the United States. This is less a marketing deal than a classification event. The conventional framing of prediction markets is that they are places where people bet on outcomes. That framing is increasingly obsolete. What prediction markets produce is more precise: a continuously updated, crowd-sourced probability signal backed by capital. Participants do not vote. They commit money to positions, which means the signal carries accountability that polling and expert commentary do not. The Federal Reserve has called Kalshi data "valuable to researchers and policymakers." Politicians reference their Kalshi odds at rallies. Newsrooms use the data to contextualize breaking events. Roughly 70% of Kalshi's users visit the platform to check forecasts rather than to trade. A prediction market at scale operates as a real-time probability layer for how markets, institutions and the public process uncertainty. The Fox deal is the moment that layer went mainstream.

Monday's piece examined SpaceX and the structural asymmetry that determines who can act when a private company goes public. The argument was not about SpaceX specifically. It was about how private markets are designed, and why the holders who appear best positioned at a listing are often the ones most constrained by it. That argument applies equally to Kalshi. SpaceX builds rockets and satellite internet. Kalshi builds infrastructure for prediction markets. The businesses are entirely different. From a capital markets perspective they share an architecture: late-stage private companies with institutional validation, closed cap tables, and a listing trajectory that is increasingly visible without being accessible. Kalshi raised $1 billion at a $22 billion valuation earlier this year. The round was institutional and the cap table is closed. Whenever Kalshi lists, private equity holders will face the same 180-day lock-up that governs every major IPO, the same window will open, and the same constraints will determine who can act in it. The pattern repeats regardless of sector.

Two weeks ago these pages examined the SEC and CFTC's joint token taxonomy: sixty-eight pages and a formal classification framework, which most of the industry called a breakthrough. The better description was confirmation. This week something more revealing happened. The US House Financial Services Committee held a dedicated tokenization hearing, and the conclusion was not legislation. It was an admission that tokenization is arriving, that the market already exists at $26 billion and is growing, and that the statutory framework to govern it does not yet exist. The gap between what regulators can classify and what Congress can legislate is where the story sits. The 17 March taxonomy said what tokens are, and that matters. But knowing what something is and knowing how to govern it are different problems. The SEC and CFTC were explicit that their interpretation carries persuasive authority rather than binding force, and that only Congress can supply the statutory foundation. Congress, as of this week, is still preparing for that task. The CLARITY Act passed the House in July 2025. The Senate markup is targeted for late April. What follows, meaning conference, reconciliation and signature, is a process measured in months rather than days. The market does not pause while it runs.

Priced in a Room argued that the largest open question about Kalshi was binary and near-term: federally regulated derivatives market or unlicensed gambling operation, to be answered by courts and regulators within a year or two. Eight days later the Ninth Circuit answered it, affirming the dissolution of Kalshi's injunction against Nevada's gaming regulator. Five days after that, New Jersey asked the Supreme Court to answer it again, because the Third Circuit had already ruled the other way in April. Much of the coverage says the Ninth Circuit held that sports event contracts are not swaps. It did not. The posture is a preliminary injunction, so the finding is that Kalshi did not show a likelihood of success on preemption, not a merits ruling. Anyone marking a position off the headline is marking off a decision that has not happened yet. This piece looks at what a circuit split and a certiorari petition actually do to the question, and why the answer that arrived is not the one the 20 August piece expected.

Kalshi has built an exchange around putting prices on unresolved questions. One of the biggest unresolved questions now concerns Kalshi itself. New York is challenging whether its core sports business is a federally regulated derivatives market or unlicensed gambling. Less than 2 weeks later, reports emerged that Kalshi was in talks to raise at a $40 billion valuation. The lawsuit's headline damages figure and the reported valuation aren't directly comparable. But together they expose something more interesting: a binary regulatory outcome could materially reshape Kalshi's economics, yet there is no public market continuously pricing that risk. For a company built around markets for uncertain outcomes, perhaps its most consequential contract is the one you can't trade.

Kalshi's reported $40 billion valuation isn't just pricing today's business. It's pricing an outcome. The company has grown at an extraordinary pace, with valuation climbing from roughly $2 billion in mid-2025 to a reported $40 billion today, alongside explosive trading volume and revenue growth. But the more interesting question is what investors believe Kalshi is becoming. Is it simply a fast-growing prediction market, or is the market beginning to value it as a new piece of financial infrastructure? The article explores why that distinction matters, how regulation sits at the center of the investment case, and what a $40 billion valuation is really saying about the future of prediction markets.

Kalshi traded a record $9.4 billion in June, up from $5.3 billion in May, with daily volume running above $1 billion since the tournament began (DefiLlama data, via CNBC). Its World Cup winner market alone has traded more than $800 million, and individual knockout matches have pulled in over $48 million each. Through the July 19 final at MetLife, Kalshi is also the official prediction market sponsor of the House of GOAL festival in Brooklyn, with live markets on screens next to live matches. That matters because it marks a visible change in where the category now sits. Prediction markets are no longer just a niche internet product or a policy-adjacent curiosity. They are showing up alongside the biggest sporting event on the planet, in ordinary consumer settings, with real volume behind them. When earlier pieces argued that Kalshi was becoming infrastructure, this was the next phase of that idea: not only institutional relevance, but mainstream familiarity. That is a meaningful shift. It also sharpens the one question that matters most for the category from here.