Markets over monopolies

The problem with closed forecasts

Forecasts about elections, the economy, geopolitics, and corporate outcomes have historically been the province of a small number of institutions — pollsters, ratings agencies, central banks, and major media outlets. Their forecasts shape public debate and policy, but the process behind them is opaque and the incentives are misaligned with accuracy.

When the people producing forecasts have no skin in the game, mistakes are cheap. When the organizations distributing them benefit from controversy, calibration suffers.

Markets do it differently

Prediction markets aggregate the views of thousands of independent participants — each of whom puts their own money on the line. Disagreement creates trading opportunity, which attracts more participants, which sharpens the consensus.

• Anyone can participate — the barrier to entry is the cost of one share, not credentials.
• Skin in the game ensures that bad forecasts cost money. Good forecasts make money.
• Real-time price movements update faster than any survey can be re-fielded.
• Manipulation is expensive: anyone trying to push prices away from truth is providing free profit to traders willing to take the other side.

The evidence

Decades of academic literature — and our own internal research — show prediction-market forecasts consistently outperforming polling, expert surveys, and consensus models, especially during inflection points and surprise events.

We're building Kalsshi to make these tools available to everyone, not just hedge funds and policy wonks. The end goal is simple: better forecasts, better decisions, and a more informed public.