(AsiaGameHub) - Kalshi, despite ongoing assertions that it is not a gambling platform, is increasingly adopting practices typical of sportsbooks. The company has joined the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) as a member and has faced accusations of restricting users who regularly profit on its platform.
The NCPG announced that Kalshi is its first member from the financial services and trading sector. The prediction market has committed to donating $2 million over the next two years to the organization.
Other NCPG members include major sports betting operators, casinos, and lottery providers. In a statement, the NCPG emphasized that it “maintains a neutral stance on the legality of specific gambling, wagering, or prediction products.”
Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour stated that the company is “deeply committed to establishing a new benchmark for responsible trading.” The platform has implemented safeguards closely resembling responsible gambling measures used by betting operators, such as trading pauses, self-imposed limits, self-exclusion options, and access to mental health support for users.
Meanwhile, Matt Kalish, co-founder of DraftKings, alleges that Kalshi may be enabling market makers to identify and restrict users who consistently profit.
Does Kalshi Assist Market Makers in Restricting Users?
Restricting successful bettors is a common practice among nearly all sportsbooks. Prediction market platforms, however, argue this distinction sets them apart from gambling operators. While gambling companies rely on users losing to generate profits, prediction markets claim neutrality, asserting they do not act as the house.
Kalish contends that Kalshi provides market makers with tools to detect profitable traders, allowing them to opt out of offering liquidity in certain markets—functioning similarly to how sportsbooks limit high-performing users.
His primary concern is not the act of limiting users itself, but what he describes as hypocrisy. He argues there is a clear difference between sportsbooks openly restricting winners and Kalshi doing the same while “directly lying and gaslighting consumers and competitors about how you operate in the market.”
Kalshi and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the platform’s regulator, frequently assert that prediction markets are distinct from gambling and do not restrict profitable traders.
“Traditional sportsbooks and casinos offer entertainment and hold significant power to exclude winners. In derivative markets, that is not allowed,” said CFTC Chair Michael Selig this week. “If you keep winning? Excellent. You keep your profits. What we’re seeing is a fundamental difference between markets and entertainment.”
However, in a post on X, Kalish cited evidence suggesting that Kalshi’s Request For Quote (RFQ) and market-maker infrastructure includes user identifiers and supports filtering at the participant level.
Q: Why does Kalshi share your user id to Wall Street market makers in RFQ api?A: To profile order flow for “risk management” *but* Wall Street = , so we pinky promise to NOT to use it to flag winning users, share lists, and decide when we’d prefer to not provide liquidity pic.twitter.com/HRTUkngv4a— Matt Kalish (@mattkalish) May 18, 2026
This post is among several recent public criticisms Kalish has directed at Kalshi. His core argument is that the platform functions essentially as a sportsbook—but one that offers a worse experience than established operators like DraftKings, where he spent over 14 years before leaving in April to lead a content-creation agency.
Others counter that RFQs are only used for parlays, while limit orders remain anonymous, making it difficult for market makers to target users in single-market trades.
Although parlays are growing in popularity on Kalshi, they are rarely profitable for bettors. Approximately 70% of sportsbook revenue comes from multi-leg wagers.
Limited Liquidity Poses Challenges for Prediction Markets
Users attempting to place individual bets on Kalshi may encounter restrictions when market liquidity is low—a situation that sparked Kalish’s recent criticism.
“Kalshi upset me when my PGA Championship wager was routed to their market maker partners at far below fair odds,” Kalish told Front Office Sports. This prompted him to question “how sports bets are processed on Kalshi and who truly benefits.”
He had attempted to cash out a bet on Brooks Koepka winning the tournament but found insufficient liquidity to do so at a favorable price.
Liquidity constraints affect all users equally, regardless of whether they are profitable or not—this differs from sportsbooks selectively limiting successful bettors.
Kalshi Accused of Functioning as the House
At the same time, Kalish alleges that users are typically trading against market makers, which he claims operate much like traditional sportsbooks. Both DraftKings and FanDuel have publicly acknowledged acting as market makers on prediction platforms.
“You’re not trading against me,” Kalish wrote in another X post. “We’re all trading against Susquehanna and professional Wall Street market makers.”
Kalshi has also been accused of misleading users by promoting its peer-to-peer model as offering greater profit potential. A November lawsuit alleged the platform “resembles a betting exchange where wagers are indistinguishable from bets placed against a house.”
The lawsuit claimed that users often bet against Kalshi itself—either through affiliated entities like Kalshi Trading LLC and KalshiEx, or through hedge fund partners such as Susquehanna.
Kalshi dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless fiction,” stating it “reflects fundamental misunderstandings about how federally regulated Designated Contract Markets (DCMs) function.”
Co-founder Luana Lopes Lara responded: “Kalshi is an exchange. It’s peer-to-peer, and there is no house. Anyone can place orders and trade with anyone else—whether an individual or an institution. Like any financial exchange, we have market makers who compete openly and help establish liquidity.”
She added, “Anyone can join our market maker programs by committing to liquidity requirements. If interested, contact support and we’ll assist with setup.”
The debate over whether Kalshi qualifies as a gambling platform is likely to persist. Nonetheless, its decision to join the NCPG signals a recognition of its operational similarities to traditional gambling operators for many users.
This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content.
AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.
