TLDR

• A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalshi challenging how the platform settled a prediction market related to Ali Khamenei’s potential removal as Iranian Supreme Leader.
• Contract holders expected complete $1 payouts following Khamenei’s reported death on Feb. 28, but the platform enforced a previously disclosed “death carveout” provision.
• Trading activity in the market exceeded $54 million; the two primary plaintiffs maintained positions valued at approximately $259.84.
• The platform refunded all trading fees and compensated net losses, maintaining that no participant suffered financial harm, though plaintiffs demand full contractual payments plus additional damages.
• Platform co-founder Tarek Mansour defended the decision, noting the provision was disclosed upfront and aligns with company policy against profiting from death-related outcomes.

Legal action has been initiated against prediction market platform Kalshi through a class action complaint submitted to the US District Court for the Central District of California. At the heart of the dispute is the platform’s settlement methodology for a market questioning “Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader?”

We stand by principle and law:

1. Kalshi didn’t deviate from its market rules. They were clear that death did not resolve the market to “Yes”.

2. Kalshi’s rules prevented a ‘death market’, where traders directly profit from death. This is a good thing (+ we’re a US based… https://t.co/gXMeQECFLz

— Tarek Mansour (@mansourtarek_) March 6, 2026

Participants in this market were wagering on whether Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate his position before March 1, 2026. Those purchasing “yes” positions anticipated receiving the complete $1 per share value should the predicted outcome materialize.

Following widespread media coverage reporting Khamenei’s death on Feb. 28, market participants assumed their positions would yield maximum returns.

However, Kalshi implemented what the company terms a “death carveout provision.” Under this mechanism, when a leader’s departure results exclusively from death, market resolution occurs at the final trading price rather than distributing full payments to winning positions.

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs contend this provision was obscured within technical documentation. Their argument centers on the claim that typical traders would not reasonably discover this condition before committing funds.

According to the complaint, the carveout language was “not incorporated into the user-facing rules summary.” The filing further asserts the disclosure method failed to adequately notify any “reasonable consumer.”

The legal documents note that Kalshi subsequently conceded their initial disclosures contained “grammatically ambiguous” language.

While the two identified plaintiffs maintained positions worth roughly $259.84, the overall market generated more than $54 million in trading activity.

Kalshi’s Response to the Lawsuit

Tarek Mansour, co-founder of Kalshi, provided a public statement regarding the controversy via X. He emphasized the platform maintains a longstanding prohibition on markets enabling participants to gain financially from death outcomes.

“We don’t list markets directly tied to death,” Mansour stated. He emphasized the provision existed within market terms and wasn’t concealed from users.

Kalshi provided full reimbursement for all associated trading fees and compensated net losses connected to the market. According to company statements, every trader was made financially whole.

Mansour additionally recognized opportunities for improvement in how the platform presents rule disclosures to users before position entry.

What Plaintiffs Are Seeking

The refund measures have not satisfied the plaintiffs. Their legal action pursues compensatory damages matching the complete anticipated payout values.

Additionally, they seek punitive damages intended to prevent comparable practices going forward.

The complaint characterizes the carveout mechanism as “predatory” and constituting an “unfair business practice,” noting that with an 85-year-old leader amid escalating military tensions, death represented the most probable scenario.

The company recently completed a funding round establishing an $11 billion valuation. This milestone arrived as prediction markets experience unprecedented trading volumes throughout 2026.

TLDR:

• Strategy currently holds 720,000 BTC and targets 1.5 million, requiring roughly $55 billion in new capital raised
  
• The company uses preferred stock and convertible notes, meaning Bitcoin is not pledged for automatic liquidation triggers
  
• Strategy’s liquidity covers debt and dividends for up to 2.5 years, eliminating any need to sell Bitcoin during downturns.
  
• Owning 1.5 million BTC would place Strategy above Satoshi’s estimated holdings, making it the largest single Bitcoin holder. 

Strategy, led by Michael Saylor, has set a target to acquire up to 1.5 million Bitcoin. Saylor confirmed this goal during a recent CNBC interview. The company currently holds approximately 720,000 BTC.

Achieving that number would require an additional 780,000 coins. At current market prices, that amounts to roughly $55 billion in new capital.

Why Strategy Is Not at Risk of a Margin Call

A recurring debate in crypto markets centers on whether Strategy could face a margin call. The question resurfaces each time Bitcoin experiences a notable price decline.

However, the firm’s financial structure is specifically built to prevent that scenario. Strategy does not hold Bitcoin against automatic liquidation requirements. Unlike leveraged traders, the company’s exposure does not carry margin requirements tied to price movements.

The company instead raises funds through instruments backed by its Bitcoin treasury as collateral. These instruments include preferred stock and convertible notes.

Milk Road, a widely followed crypto outlet, reported that “the BTC isn’t pledged in a way that triggers automatic liquidation.” That structural detail is one that many critics overlook when assessing the company’s risk.

Furthermore, Strategy’s current liquidity covers debt and dividend obligations for roughly two to two-and-a-half years. That coverage requires no Bitcoin sales during the period. 

As a result, Saylor has substantial time to manage market conditions without liquidating holdings. That extended cushion is a key part of the company’s risk management framework.

Beyond that, Saylor holds additional levers before any sale would become a consideration. He can refinance existing debt or raise fresh capital through new offerings. Even in a scenario where Bitcoin dropped to $1, Saylor says Strategy would not face forced liquidation.

Saylor’s Plan to Become Bitcoin’s Largest Institutional Holder

Reaching 1.5 million Bitcoin would place Strategy above every known holder of the asset. That includes the estimated dormant supply held by Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s anonymous creator.

No existing corporate wallet or known individual currently holds Bitcoin at that scale. That distinction would make Strategy the most concentrated institutional Bitcoin holder in history.

Saylor has framed this target as reasonable within the context of Bitcoin’s capped supply. He views acquiring between 3% and 7% of the total 21 million Bitcoin as a fair and defensible position. That outlook drives continued buying, regardless of short-term price fluctuations.

To close the gap from 720,000 to 1.5 million BTC, Strategy needs approximately $55 billion in additional capital. The company plans to raise these funds through equity issuances and debt offerings. Each successful raise converts directly into more Bitcoin on the balance sheet.

As Milk Road noted, “The accumulation is the strategy. The structure is why it keeps running.” Saylor’s method is disciplined and long-term in focus.

The 1.5 million Bitcoin target remains the clearest expression of that approach. For long-term Bitcoin observers, that level of institutional commitment carries considerable weight.

TLDR:

• Florida’s SB 1568 passed 37-0, making it the first U.S. state stablecoin regulatory framework.
  
• Stablecoin issuers must hold 1:1 reserves in cash or U.S. Treasuries under Florida’s new law.
  
• Payment stablecoins are classified as non-securities under Florida law, ending years of legal uncertainty.
  
• Issuers exceeding $10B must shift to federal oversight under the GENIUS Act signed in July 2025.

Florida has become the first U.S. state to pass a dedicated stablecoin regulatory framework. Senate Bill 1568 cleared the Florida legislature with a unanimous 37-0 vote.

The bill outlines licensing requirements for stablecoin issuers operating within the state. Governor Ron DeSantis is expected to sign the legislation into law soon. If signed, the law will take effect on October 1, 2026.

SB 1568: Rules That Govern Florida’s Stablecoin Issuers

Under the new bill, stablecoin issuers must maintain reserves at a 1:1 ratio. Accepted reserve assets include cash and U.S. Treasury instruments.

All issuers must also register as money services businesses in Florida. Additionally, they are required to follow anti-money laundering and know-your-customer rules.

Large transactions must be reported to state regulators under SB 1568. These requirements bring stablecoin operations under the same level of scrutiny as traditional financial services.

The rules are designed to protect consumers while creating a more predictable operating environment. Crypto businesses now have a clear regulatory path to follow in Florida.

One of the most consequential parts of the bill addresses the legal classification of stablecoins. Payment stablecoins are explicitly defined as non-securities under Florida law.

This settles a long-running debate within both the crypto and legal communities. For years, regulators and courts struggled to categorize stablecoins under existing securities frameworks.

Milk Road reported on this development via X, noting: “Payment stablecoins are explicitly not securities under Florida law. That’s a direct answer to years of legal ambiguity.”

The 37-0 vote removed any trace of partisan division from the process. That level of agreement on a financial regulation bill is notably rare in any state legislature.

The $10 Billion Threshold and the Federal Handoff

A built-in threshold is one of the more forward-looking elements of SB 1568. Stablecoin issuers that exceed $10 billion in outstanding issuance must notify Florida regulators.

After crossing that mark, they must either transition to federal oversight or stop issuing new coins. This mechanism creates a structured handoff between state and federal jurisdiction.

The federal framework connected to this handoff is the GENIUS Act. President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025.

Florida’s bill is structured to align with that federal legislation, not compete against it. Smaller issuers operate under Florida’s rules, while larger ones move to the federal level.

This tiered structure reflects a practical approach to regulating a fast-growing market. State oversight handles smaller players carrying lower systemic risk.

Federal oversight steps in when an issuer reaches a scale that affects national markets. The $10 billion mark serves as the clear dividing line between both systems.

Other states are now closely watching what Florida has done. The unanimous vote and the bill’s straightforward structure offer a ready-made template.

Florida’s framework may shape how stablecoin regulation spreads across the U.S. in 2026. The next milestone remains DeSantis’s signature and the October 1 launch date.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded their second consecutive week of net inflows, marking the first back-to-back weekly gains in five months.

Spot Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs attracted roughly $568.45 million in net inflows this week, according to data from SoSoValue. The products also posted positive flows of about $787.31 million the previous week, showing renewed investor appetite after several weeks of sustained outflows.

Before the recent turnaround, US spot Bitcoin ETFs endured a prolonged period of investor withdrawals, recording roughly $3.8 billion in cumulative outflows over a five-week streak.  The biggest weekly withdrawal during the streak occurred in the week ending Jan. 30, when spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $1.49 billion in net outflows.

Daily flows were mixed during this week. Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded inflows of $458.19 million on Monday, followed by $225.15 million on Tuesday and a larger $461.77 million on Wednesday. The momentum reversed in the final sessions, with the funds seeing $227.83 million in outflows on Thursday and $348.83 million in redemptions on Friday.

Related: US Bitcoin ETFs Post $462 Million Inflows as BTC Tops $73K

Ether ETFs see weekly inflows

US spot Ether (ETH) ETFs also recorded their second consecutive week of net inflows. The funds attracted roughly $23.56 million in net inflows for this week after posting $80.46 million in inflows the previous week, , marking their first back-to-back weekly gains since early October last year.

Before the rebound, spot Ether ETFs faced a sustained withdrawal streak, recording more than $1.38 billion in cumulative outflows across five consecutive weeks. The largest weekly outflow occurred during the week ending Jan. 23, when the funds recorded roughly $611 million in net redemptions.

Meanwhile, the funds saw mixed results throughout the latest reporting week. They recorded $38.69 million in inflows on Monday, followed by $10.75 million in outflows on Tuesday. Inflows returned on Wednesday with $169.41 million, but the momentum faded later in the week.

Related: Bitcoin Whales Shift Billions Into ETFs Like BlackRock’s IBIT

Bitcoin ETFs match 15 years of gold ETF inflows in 2 years

In a Saturday post on X, Fernando Nikolić, Blockstream’s director of marketing, noted that Bitcoin ETFs have already matched roughly 15 years of cumulative inflows seen by gold ETFs in less than two years, despite gold having a decade-and-a-half head start in the ETF market.

Nikolić added that the milestone occurred during a 46% Bitcoin drawdown and several months of negative price performance, arguing that institutional demand remained strong even amid market weakness.

“Anyone still arguing about whether bitcoin is ‘digital gold’ is wasting their breath,” he wrote. “Bitcoin isn’t trying to be gold. Bitcoin is making gold look slow,” he added.

Magazine: Bitcoin may take 7 years to upgrade to post-quantum — BIP-360 co-author