Leading the charge to keep prediction markets accessible to everyone. Views are the Coalition's own.
Joined November 2025
- Tweets429
- Following311
- Followers1.5K
- Likes364
Huge milestone for the prediction markets industry.
The next generation of financial markets won't just track assets, but the events and risks that move and affect the world.
S&P Dow Jones Indices and Kalshi are joining forces to build the next generation of financial markets.
The Dow launched in 1896. The S&P 500 in 1957. The idea was simple: bring individual stocks together into a single benchmark, giving people a clearer view of the broader market.
Over time, products built around those benchmarks transformed investing. Index funds, ETFs, futures, and options gave investors ways to gain diversified market exposure and hedge broad market swings.
These indices became foundations of global finance. More than $20 trillion is indexed or benchmarked to the S&P 500 alone.
Today, this structure extends beyond stocks to bonds, commodities, currencies, and more.
The next step is to bring that structure to the events that shape everyone’s lives.
Through this partnership, S&P Dow Jones Indices and Kalshi will work together to create indices composed of Kalshi event contracts.
Think about what that opens up.
An index of political power. An index of supply chain risk. An index tracking AI’s impact on employment. An index of sports outcomes that affect broadcasters, advertisers, cities, and small businesses. An index of weather risks that shape harvests, energy demand, and business revenues.
Each would bundle event contracts into a single indicator, helping people understand how related risks are evolving.
Over time, products built around these indices could offer diversified exposure to those events and new ways to hedge their impact.
The events that shape our lives could become as easy to track and gain exposure to as the S&P 500.
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
Regulate polls, not prediction markets. There’s no evidence that betting harms election integrity, but fake surveys have done so this year, write Harry Crane @HarryDCrane and @KolemanStrumpf
on.wsj.com/4i8zIKq
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
Prediction markets are transparent, both in their incentives (people want to make money and avoid losing money) and their method (free markets aggregating millions of opinions).
Polls are not.
Regulate polls, not prediction markets. There’s no evidence that betting harms election integrity, but fake surveys have done so this year, write Harry Crane @HarryDCrane and @KolemanStrumpf
on.wsj.com/4i8zIKq
One fake poll can make headlines, shape narratives, and throw an entire race into question.
With the midterms approaching, separating real signals from noise matters more than ever. As Brett M. Decker points out in @RealClearMarkets:
☑️ Polls capture voter sentiment. Markets measure what people are willing to put money behind.
☑️ Traders have a financial incentive to dig deeper, question shaky data, and challenge the consensus.
☑️ When misleading information distorts the odds, traders have an incentive to correct it.
Markets aren't perfect. But there's a big difference between having an opinion and putting money behind it.
👀
Mess around, find out.
This is what federal oversight and real enforcement look like.
CFTC enforcement chief David Miller told me at @nextpredictio that the agency has scrutinized insider trading cases tied to the 2026 midterms. "We’re watching" and "we’ll come after you" if you're a candidate or campaign staffer doing insider trading. cnn.com/2026/10/22/politics/…
The difference between the casino model and the prediction market model?
Casinos limit you when you win too much. But when you keep losing, the promos keep coming, even when problem gambling may be involved.
That’s the gambling business model: discourage winners, keep losers coming back.
Kalshi CEO @mansourtarek_ joins @nickgillespie to discuss why prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks, why states are trying to regulate them, and how prohibition drives markets offshore on the Reason Interview. reason.com/podcast/2026/10/2…
Market abuse can happen anywhere. The difference is whether anyone catches it and whether there are consequences.
That’s why uniform federal oversight, KYC, surveillance and real enforcement matter.
Market manipulation has no place in CFTC-regulated markets.
With the midterm elections approaching, the @CFTC is closely monitoring prediction markets for attempts to distort trading activity or manipulate outcomes.
Let me be clear: Those who manipulate our markets will be held accountable. @BloombergTV @tylerskendall
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
CEO and co-founder of @Kalshi @mansourtarek_ fireside at @CFTC @KState AgCon. “Markets don’t lie”. Prediction market tools complement traditional market structure - to illuminate and hedge risks not captured by the incumbents.
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
Kalshi CEO @mansourtarek_ joins @nickgillespie to discuss why prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks, why states are trying to regulate them, and how prohibition drives markets offshore on the Reason Interview. reason.com/podcast/2026/10/2…
"Such hedging applications extend beyond sports. Event contracts let bicycle-rental companies and tourist sites hedge against rainfall, ski lodges against low snowfall, and other businesses against gas price spikes."
NEW from me in @NRO: Prediction markets aren't "just gambling," even for sports.
nationalreview.com/2026/10/p…
“These markets are consistently accurate in forecasting election outcomes.”
"Their efficiency is driven by the financial incentives that motivate informed participation.”
New research from @HarryDCrane on the accuracy of prediction markets and what drives it below.
EXCLUSIVE: A new study finds that political prediction market traders are not representative of all voters, but election market prices are more accurate than leading poll-based methods and not politically biased.
The study found:
✅ In its first month of listing election contracts in 2024, Kalshi's prices beat every poll-based forecast (Silver Bulletin, FiveThirtyEight, The Economist) in the national race, all seven battleground states, and 19 Senate races
✅ A trader who believed the poll-based models and traded against Kalshi's national price would have lost 92 to 100 cents per dollar.
✅ No poll-based forecast would have been profitable to trade against Kalshi in any group of presidential contests.
💰 @Kalshi's 2024 election traders were 86% male and half were under 30.
🏠 Their home zip codes voted 28% for Trump. A market that priced its traders' politics would have leaned toward Harris, not Trump. Instead, 60% of the money went to Republican positions, and Kalshi priced Trump as the favorite through the final month.
🔢 The study used data from @Kalshi in 2024, @PredictIt in 2016, and New York betting markets from 1884 to 1940.
✍️The study was authored by @HarryDCrane, Professor of Statistics at @RutgersU and member of @CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee &
@KolemanStrumpf, Burchfield Presidential Chair of Political Economy, Department of Economics, @WakeForest University.
Story via @Rotowire Below
💯.
We want strong federal regulation through the @CFTC, full consumer protections, and a level playing field – not a state-by-state patchwork designed to protect casino monopolies.
"These protections work best under one rulebook. When each state sets its own licensing terms and list of permitted contracts, exchanges must wall off users state by state, and the smaller pools produce forecasts that are less reliable and easier to manipulate," writes @bart_cleland:
The difference between betting against the house and trading on a prediction market exchange, perfectly explained.
“We operate like a stock market, like a financial exchange. We don't trade against our users,” @Kalshi cofounder @luanalopeslara said at #FortuneMPW, contrasting Kalshi with traditional sports betting. bit.ly/4hIX9d1
This is exactly why federal oversight matters. U.S. financial markets move trillions of dollars under a proven system of rules, enforcement, and accountability.
Prediction markets deserve that same rigorous oversight, not a patchwork of conflicting state rules.
🚨🚨 CFTC @ChairmanSelig pushes back on claims that prediction markets are unregulated:
“Insider trading, wash trading, manipulative strategies and fraud ... we regulate these in our derivatives markets every day.”
“That’s exactly why we regulate these as markets.”
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
Fraud and manipulation know no borders.
The @CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets for this reason. These exchanges are interstate businesses that match the bids and offers of customers from across the country. Congress equipped the CFTC with the tools needed to enforce uniform standards, surveil and police fraud and manipulation, and protect customer funds across state lines. @LizClaman
Patchwork oversight or bans on U.S.-regulated prediction market platforms wouldn't help consumers or make activity disappear.
It would just force activity offshore, where protections are virtually nonexistent.
@HarryDCrane has done the research on this: Restrict access, and U.S. trading on offshore platforms could surge to $133 BILLION annually by 2030.
That’s bigger than America’s video game and recorded music industries combined.
More in @CoinDesk 👇
Coalition for Prediction Markets retweeted
"It's not a choice of state versus federal market. It's a choice of whether prediction markets exist in the U.S. or whether they go offshore," said @mansourtarek_ at #DCFinTech Week. More via @CoinDesk: coindesk.com/policy/2026/10/…
From this one screenshot alone, this is terrible survey design.
You can't describe prediction markets using gambling terminology, ask people if they're gambling, and then pretend you've uncovered some profound public sentiment.
