Kalshi’s key strategic move was getting its prediction markets regulated by the federal CFTC, similar to commodities. This established federal preemption, meaning state-level laws don't apply. This allowed them to operate nationwide with a single regulator instead of seeking approval in 50 different states.

Related Insights

New platforms frame betting on future events as sophisticated 'trading,' akin to stock markets. This rebranding as 'prediction markets' helps them bypass traditional gambling regulations and attract users who might otherwise shun betting, positioning it as an intellectual or financial activity rather than a game of chance.

Unlike competitors using crypto to operate outside regulatory frameworks, Kalshi's CEO views on-chain technology as a tool to enhance a regulated system. He envisions using it for clearing to improve immutability and transparency, enabling a permissionless ecosystem built upon a compliant foundation.

After years battling for legitimacy, Kalshi's decision to sue its regulator, the CFTC, over election markets was a high-stakes move. Winning this lawsuit not only ensured the company's survival but also served as the critical turning point that legitimized the entire prediction market industry in the US.

Prediction markets have existed for decades. Their recent popularity surge isn't due to a technological breakthrough but to success in legalizing them. The primary obstacle was always legal prohibition, not a lack of product-market fit or superior technology.

The President's AI executive order aims to create a unified, industry-friendly regulatory environment. A key component is an "AI litigation task force" designed to challenge and preempt the growing number of state-level AI laws, centralizing control at the federal level and sidelining local governance.

The idea of individual states creating their own AI regulations is fundamentally flawed. AI operates across state lines, making it a clear case of interstate commerce that demands a unified federal approach. A 50-state regulatory framework would create chaos and hinder the country's ability to compete globally in AI development.

Prediction market platforms are promoting their products as 'CFTC-approved,' but this is misleading. They use a self-certification process where the CFTC has 24 hours to object. A lack of objection is not an endorsement, a critical distinction that CME's CEO argues is not being disclosed to retail users.

After a long regulatory battle, Kalshi expanded its event marketplace through a series of 'small p pivots.' They started with current events, moved to economic indicators, then elections (which required suing their regulator), and now sports. This shows a methodical approach to market expansion in a regulated space.

Advocating for a single national AI policy is often a strategic move by tech lobbyists and friendly politicians to preempt and invalidate stricter regulations emerging at the state level. Under the guise of creating a unified standard, this approach effectively ensures the actual policy is weak or non-existent, allowing the industry to operate with minimal oversight.

Before focusing on product or growth, Kalshi's entire initial effort was on legalizing prediction markets. For founders in regulated industries, this shows that navigating the legal landscape isn't a parallel task—it is the primary business until a framework for operation is secured.