On March 2, 2026, @JesusMartinez opened a slash against prediction market @Kalshi on Ethos for 208 credibility score. The stated reason: “Kalshi taking advantage of users & changing rules.” Two Kalshi employees, @icobeast and @0x_ultra, responded on Ethos.

The case put an accusation against an exchange and the exchange’s answer on the same page, where Ethos users could weigh both.

The accusation

Ethos is an onchain reputation network where people review and vouch for each other, and every account gets a credibility score from what others say about it. A slash is a formal challenge to that standing. @JesusMartinez’s slash summed up the complaint in one line: that Kalshi was taking advantage of users and changing its rules.

How Kalshi’s employees responded

Both @icobeast and @0x_ultra left their thoughts on the slash. In doing so, they cited a post by @mansourtarek_, written from the exchange’s side, about frustration over Kalshi’s Khamenei market.

@mansourtarek_’s post made several points:

• The rules were not changed. According to the post, a death carveout and settlement based on last-traded price were part of the published market rules from the start, and appear in Kalshi’s 2025 filing on the CFTC website. The carveout was shown on the market page, and a “Green Box” added after strikes on Iran began was described as a highlight of existing rules, not a rule change.
• The market settled according to the rules. Traders were paid based on the last traded price. The post argued that settling differently because YES holders were unhappy would break trust with NO holders who read the rules, and that as a federally regulated prediction market, Kalshi is required not to enable direct profiting from war, assassination, terrorism or other violent outcomes.
• No trader lost money. After traders said the rules were not prominent enough, Kalshi said it reimbursed all fees and all net losses out of pocket, so no trader ended net negative.
• Kalshi did not profit. The post said Kalshi earns fees from facilitating trades, refunded those fees for this market and took a substantial loss to make users whole.
• Changes were planned. Kalshi said it would show exceptions like death carveouts in the market title and at the top of the market page, acknowledged that the first version of the Green Box caused confusion, and said it was introducing a tighter review process for UI highlights.

@mansourtarek_ closed with an apology: “The best part about Kalshi is you all and I’m sorry for the disappointment.”

Why the case stood out

Disputes over market resolution usually play out in replies and quote posts that scatter quickly. Here, a specific accusation and a detailed response from the company’s side were attached to Kalshi’s reputation on Ethos, where the community could judge whether the claim of “changing rules” held up against Kalshi’s account of what happened.

Outcome

Ethos’s posts from March 2, 2026 do not record how the slash against Kalshi was resolved.

This thread first appeared on X.