Another scandal has hit the world of prediction markets, as one of the main websites has refused to pay out a winning pot of $54 million to those who 'bet' on the removal of Iran's Supreme Leader despite the fact he was killed by the US military.
It feels fitting that the world would reach a point where you can 'gamble' on pretty much anything, with some making millions on events as impactful as military invasions or as inconsequential as the length of a White House press briefing.
You might have heard of websites like Polymarket and Kalshi, as the rise of prediction markets gives people a new way to 'bet' — although it's not strictly the same as traditional gambling.
Unlike regular bookmaking, the odds and wagers placed on predictions are determined entirely by people using the sites and not the sites themselves, and you can bet your money on anything you want providing there's an alternative position and a definitive answer.
Advert
That's why you have people betting on things as extreme as nuclear war or as outlandish as the return of Jesus Christ, but one recent popular trading point has left many disgruntled after a winning bet left them with nothing in return.
As reported by the Independent, some users were reeling in success after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated as part of the US and Israeli military's Operation Epic Fury air strikes on February 28, expecting a significant financial reward from a bet on the removal of the head of state.
The payout for winning was expected to be in the region of $54 million, but successful predictions will now be worth nothing due to what Kalshi calls 'ambiguous language'.
Kalshi did warn people ahead of time, however, as while promoting the bet in a post on X, the prediction market noted: "Reminder: Kalshi does not offer markets that settle on death. If Ali Khamenei dies, the market will resolve based on the last traded price prior to confirmed reporting of death."
In a follow-up post, Kalshi has attempted to quell frustration and anger from those who believe they were owed the winnings, writing:
"A prior version of this clarification was grammatically ambiguous. As a customer service measure, Kalshi will reimburse lost value due to trades made between these clarifications."
Some called for the website to close the prediction entirely, arguing that it's "shameful" for people to earn money from someone's death, whereas others have expressed how they feel cheated by the technicality.
"The original language on the bet implied any means of Ali Khamenei's removal. Settle the same way as Polymarket and reestablish TOS after," proposed one disgruntled user, with another declaring:
"As a first time Kalshi user I am now going to cash out and delete the app. What a terrible LTV/CAC when you try to fine print and screw folks. Could have been a good run but happy to get out and tell others to do the same."
That's the trouble with a model that operates on the specificity of its outcome, as there will always be a way for people to find loopholes or ambiguities to either make or break the outcome that they desire, leaving nobody happy as a result.