Not financial/legal advice. Not affiliated with @kalshi (or anyone). RTs are not endorsements. Opinions are my own. ✊🏻✊🏻🚪
Joined April 2026
- Tweets2.8K
- Following317
- Followers129
- Likes13K
Most parents still consider their 18 year old teenagers “kids”. Why do you allow 18 year olds to gamble again?
PM Receipts retweeted
This is the fight we want. Unelected federal bureaucrats claiming powers Congress never granted them versus the sovereign rights of states and tribes to regulate gambling within their own jurisdictions.
.@CFTC Sues to Block State Enforcement in Utah Amid Ongoing Efforts to Preserve Jurisdiction: cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressRele…
PM Receipts retweeted
The Trump administration sued Utah, asking a federal judge to block the state from enforcing its gambling laws against prediction companies. Most of these CFTC lawsuits have been against Democratic states — this one is against a ruby-red, anti-betting state.
.@CFTC Sues to Block State Enforcement in Utah Amid Ongoing Efforts to Preserve Jurisdiction: cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressRele…
PM Receipts retweeted
Putting aside the optics of a single-commissioner agency issuing rules midstream to align with its own litigation position, these rules will undoubtedly face strong APA challenges on substantive and procedural grounds, including whether the CFTC exceeded its statutory authority.
“The New York Attorney General’s office argues that even if the CFTC finalizes the regulation, it cannot expand the definition of swaps beyond what Congress authorized under the Commodity Exchange Act.” nextpredict.io/market-news/l…
PM Receipts retweeted
This is @ChairmanSelig’s last chance to get through the revolving door to a partner at [unnamed law firm] before it hits him @VictorRocha1
How to hijack cable news in 2026:
1. Find a $2,000 illiquid market.
2. Move the line with barely any capital.
3. Watch news anchors treat your $500 trade as “expert geopolitical analysis.”
PM Receipts retweeted
most prediction markets are illiquid enough that building credibility to your lie is quite cheap. military/intelligence institutions already do this for attack date markets for example
PM Receipts retweeted
Prediction markets aren’t probabilities. If I enact a network of bettors on a candidate, this doesn’t mean the candidates probabilities have increased. I have simply astroturfed the public perception. And that is what the political prediction markets have devolved into. Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest or downright deceptive.
PM Receipts retweeted
“The CFTC’s recent rulemaking is emerging as an issue in prediction-market cases around the country, as Kalshi and other exchanges urge courts to delay decisions pending rulemaking or rely on the agency’s evolving definitions to support their jurisdictional arguments.”
You just described standard probability buckets. 5.6 doesn't do that — it measures the trade-level return scores.
Kalshi when the congressional subpoenas hit: “why does everyone think we are associated with the Trump administration? Aside from Don Jr. advising us and our founder who clearly has had no media training.”
Ok, go look at 5.6’s “calibration metric”
Buy YES at $0.90 and NO at $0.10. Cost = $1, payout = $1, score = 0.
You can’t just call an accounting identity “proof of fair probabilities” when the true probability could actually be 50/50.
Heads: “We are replacing broken polling with real-time truth.”
Tails: “Read a math book, a 1% outcome happens 1% of the time!”
Pick a lane. Kalshi is either an authoritative forecasting tool or a sportsbook with some disclaimers. I’ve never seen a business model where you get to pick according to how you feel that day. 🇧🇷
PM Receipts retweeted
Is it a violation of journalistic ethics for a journalist to wager on a prediction market on a race they are covering? My answer is, absolutely yes.
91%Yes
9%No
211 votes • Final resultsPublishing an op-ed advocating for the exact regulatory break your paid sponsor wants, without disclosing it, is called astroturfing. @WSJ
PS order book depth tells you where capital is concentrated, not where votes are.
1.8M followers, 11K views, 0 RTs, & only 2 likes
That should tell you everything you need to know about how fans feel about this
Sure!
Substantive hole #1: Order books measure capital depth and whale bias, not representative voter intent.
Substantive hole #2: The piece omits that the author sits on the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee and conducts research funded by the Coalition for Prediction Markets aka @Sara_Slane.