A Note Before We Begin: I’ve been watching Kalshi’s journey closely. Following Tarek and Luana’s social media, studying their regulatory victories, and seeing how they’ve built something genuinely innovative. The work they’re doing, fighting for three years to secure CFTC approval, creating a new category, and democratizing access to markets, is impressive. Deeply impressive.

This analysis comes from admiration, not criticism. I’m fascinated by what makes businesses connect to identity, why some companies own mental territory while others just occupy market share. Kalshi is succeeding in ways most startups never will. The question isn’t whether they’re winning. They clearly are. The question is: what are they actually winning at?

I’ve tried to get the facts right, using public information, customer testimonials, and their own communications. If I’ve misrepresented anything, that’s my error, not my intent. I’m an outsider looking at patterns. They’re insiders with data, evidence, and context I don’t have. They might see this completely differently. That’s fair.

Here’s what I’m trying to do: read their label. Because no one can read their own label from the inside. Founders live the tactics, the execution, the daily decisions. They feel the gravitational pull of their position but often can’t name what’s pulling them. They’re too close to see the concept customers actually associate with them versus the concept they think they’ve built.

This entire analysis answers one question: What business are you actually in?

Not what business you think you’re in. Not what business you tell investors you’re in. What business customers believe you’re in. What mental territory you occupy in their minds when they choose you.

That gap, between what founders think they’ve built and what customers experience, is where the most important insights live.

The $5 Billion Contradiction

Ask Tarek Mansour how Kalshi reached a $5 billion valuation in seven years, and he’ll tell you about the regulatory hell. Three years fighting the CFTC. Over 65 lawyers who said it was impossible. Becoming the first federally regulated prediction market in U.S. history. Creating a new asset class called “event contracts.”

He’ll describe the moat, the CFTC designation that competitors can’t replicate. The partnerships include Robinhood, the NHL, and Susquehanna International. The mission: democratizing sophisticated hedging tools that Wall Street hoarded.

He’s describing Level 1. Claiming through exceptional articulation.

What he’s missing: He doesn’t own the concept he’s claiming. And he has accidentally built ownership of a completely different concept that he won’t fully acknowledge.

Before we dive in, you need to understand how positioning actually works. Most companies operate at four distinct levels, and most don’t realize which level they’re actually at:

Level 4: OWNING IT — The concept becomes synonymous with you in the minds of your customers. Volvo = safety. Tesla = the future. This takes years to build and is nearly impossible to copy.

Level 1: CLAIMING IT — You articulate your position clearly. Perfect messaging, sharp framing, consistent language. This process can take months, and anyone can replicate it.

Level 2: PROVING IT — You deliver measurable outcomes that validate your claims. Specific results, verified improvements, quantifiable change. This process takes 6-12 months and requires significant effort.

Level 3: LIVING IT — You embed positioning into organizational DNA. Structure, culture, and processes all reinforce the concept. This takes 12-24 months and is expensive to replicate.

The trap: Most companies perfect Level 1 (articulation) and think they’ve reached Level 4 (ownership). They confuse clear framing with mental territory ownership. They can’t skip levels because each one builds on the previous one.

Kalshi has mastered Level 1. But they’re claiming a concept at Level 1 that they don’t own at Level 4, while accidentally building Level 4 ownership of something else entirely.

That’s the gap this analysis reveals.

PS: The CEO Clarity Starter Kit uncovered all the insights you’ll read in this perspective.

Part 1: The Story They Tell

Kalshi’s narrative is seductively coherent. Two MIT-trained quants, Tarek Mansour from Lebanon, and Luana Lopes Lara from Brazil, met at Goldman Sachs. During Brexit, they watched institutions fumble without direct instruments to hedge event risk. You could trade futures on commodities, but not on election outcomes or Federal Reserve decisions.

So they built the impossible. While competitors moved fast and broke things, Kalshi spent 18 months securing CFTC approval before launch. November 2020: Designated Contract Market status. The only federally regulated prediction market in America.

The frameworks they evangelize:

• Category creation, not competition (“prediction markets as fourth asset class”)
• Regulatory arbitrage as a strategy (federal preemption over state gambling laws)
• Democratization narrative (“breaking barriers that kept sophisticated hedging from everyday people”)
• Information aggregation theory (“wisdom of crowds producing better forecasts than experts”)

The metrics they obsess over:

• CFTC approval (mentioned in virtually every communication)
• $50 billion annualized trading volume (200x growth)
• 62% global prediction market share
• Partnership logos (Robinhood’s 24.8M users, NHL validation, institutional liquidity)
• Accuracy claims (85% on inflation vs. 20% for Bloomberg economists)

Their stated strategy:

Build regulatory moat → Enable nationwide access → Partner with mainstream platforms → Scale through legitimacy, not offshore risk.

The Linguistic Tell

Listen to how they describe themselves:

“We’re building a financial market for everyone.”

“Kalshi isn’t trying to be a sportsbook… the goal is to build something more like a Bloomberg Terminal for real-world uncertainty.”

“We’re revolutionizing how people interact with the financial world.”

Building. Trying. Revolutionizing. All verbs.

Now watch what they claim to own:

• “Event contracts” (product category, not concept)
• “New asset class” (definitional, not perceptual)
• “Financial infrastructure” (aspiration, not ownership)
• “Truth through markets” (philosophical, not mental territory)

They’re describing what they do (verbs) and what they sell (product categories). Not what they own (concepts).

Compare to companies operating at Level 4:

• Volvo doesn’t say “we build cars with superior safety features” (verb). They are safety (noun).
• Tesla doesn’t say “we manufacture electric vehicles well” (verb). They own the future (noun).
• Red Bull doesn’t say “we boost energy effectively” (verb). They own human performance (noun).

Kalshi says: “We provide regulated trading in event outcomes” (verbs).

Missing: The noun. The concept. The mental territory.

This is the tell.

What They Think Is Working

Mansour credits their success to:

Regulatory strategy: The CFTC approval created an unassailable moat. Competitors must either go offshore (Polymarket) or spend years replicating the approval process. Federal designation enables 50-state operation without gambling licenses.

Distribution partnerships: Robinhood integration gave instant access to 24.8M users. NHL partnership provided mainstream legitimacy. Susquehanna brought institutional liquidity.

Product superiority: Peer-to-peer exchange (no house edge) offers better odds than sportsbooks. Binary yes/no contracts make probability transparent. Full cash collateralization eliminates leverage risk.

Category creation: They didn’t enter the prediction market category. They created the “regulated event contracts” category and positioned themselves as the king.

This all sounds strategic. It’s actually backwards.

The position chose these tactics. They’re rationalizing the path after walking it.

Part 2: The Hidden Position

Remove Kalshi’s name. What concept do customers actually associate exclusively with them?

Not “event contracts.” That’s a product.
Not “prediction markets.” Polymarket shares that space.
Not “financial hedging.” That’s what they claim, not what customers experience.

What Kalshi actually owns: “Regulated certainty.”

The Noun They Own vs. The Adjectives They Claim

What they claim:

• “Innovative” prediction markets
• “Accessible” event trading
• “Transparent” platform
• “Sophisticated” derivatives

All adjectives. Descriptive, not distinctive.

What they own:

• Regulation (noun)
• Legitimacy (noun, derived from regulation)
• Certainty (noun, knowing you’re operating within federal law)

The mental territory: “The safe way to bet on anything.”

When users choose Kalshi over Polymarket, they’re not choosing “better prediction markets.” They’re choosing CFTC oversight over crypto anonymity. Bank integration over MetaMask wallets. Federal protection over decentralized risk.

The Evidence From Behaviour

The actual concept owned reveals itself through volume:

• 70-98% of trading volume comes from sports betting: Super Bowl ($867M), March Madness ($513M), NFL, NBA, NHL
• Customer testimonials: “Best sportsbetting app by far. Much better odds than FanDuel and DraftKings.”
• User language: “I use it to make daily income” (not “I hedge risk”)
• Post-event behaviour: 90%+ drop-off after elections, then sports becomes baseline

Strip away the sophisticated framing, and you find the concept that customers hold: Kalshi is where you can legally bet on sports, elections, and events with federal approval, rather than offshore sketchiness or state-by-state gambling licenses.

The Identity They Actually Enable

Who Kalshi thinks uses them:
Professional traders hedging real-world risk. Institutions managing portfolio exposure. Sophisticated analysts monetizing information advantages.

Who actually uses them:
Retail speculators betting on elections. Sports fans who want action in states where DraftKings isn’t licensed. People who want to be right about news events and get paid for it.

The identity being expressed: “I’m sophisticated enough to trade on a regulated exchange, not a degenerate gambler on DraftKings.”

The CFTC approval provides identity protection. They’re not betting, they’re trading event contracts.

Position-Distribution Proof

Once you see their real position, everything makes sense:

Why Robinhood partnered: Not because prediction markets are sophisticated hedging tools, but because sports betting is a $10B+ market and Robinhood wants access without state-by-state licensing.

Why NHL validated them: Not because teams need event contract hedging, but because sports betting is mainstream, and a regulated partner provides legitimacy.

Why 70-98% volume is sports: Because that’s what the position actually owns. “Regulated betting” naturally gravitates to sports, the highest-volume betting category.

The distribution didn’t come from tactics. The position chose sports betting. They’re rationalizing it as hedging.

The Noun-Verb Architecture Gap

Nouns they claim to own:

• “Event hedging” → Don’t own it (CME owns institutional hedging)
• “Financial infrastructure” → Don’t own it (aspirational, not perceptual)
• “New asset class” → Category definition, not mental territory
• “Truth through markets” → Philosophical, not customer association

Verbs they actually deliver:

• Trading on events
• Enabling speculation
• Providing legitimacy
• Offering better odds than sportsbooks

Noun they actually own:

• “Regulation” in the prediction market space
• “Legitimacy” for betting on anything

The architecture is confused. They’re executing verbs (trading, enabling) while claiming nouns they don’t own (hedging, infrastructure) and underarticulating the noun they do own (regulated legitimacy).

Part 3: The Level They’re Actually Operating At

This is where it gets revealing. Kalshi thinks they’re operating at Level 4 (owning “financial infrastructure”). They’re actually operating at Level 1 (exceptional framing) with emerging Level 4 ownership of something else entirely.

Level 4 Assessment: Owning It

Test 1: Remove their name. Do customers still associate the concept with them?

“Regulated prediction markets” → Yes, exclusively Kalshi
“Event contracts” → Product category, not concept
“Financial hedging infrastructure” → No, that’s CME, futures markets
“Truth through markets” → Too abstract, not owned

Test 2: Can competitors claim to be “X too”?

Polymarket can’t claim “regulated too” (they’re explicitly decentralized)
PredictIt can’t claim nationwide access (state-licensed, limited)
Sportsbooks can’t claim CFTC legitimacy (gambling licenses)

Test 3: What do customers think of when they need X?

• When someone wants to trade on an event legally → Kalshi is becoming the answer
• When someone needs to hedge business risk → CME, not Kalshi
• When someone wants to bet on sports → Mixed (DraftKings, FanDuel, or Kalshi, depending on state)

Verdict: Level 4 on regulatory positioning, Level 1 on infrastructure positioning

They own the concept of “regulation” in prediction markets. They don’t own “financial infrastructure” or “hedging.” Those remain claims without ownership.

Duration analysis: They’ve had 4 years since launch. They still haven’t reached Level 4 in their claimed position (infrastructure), but are building toward Level 4 in their actual position (regulated betting).

Why they’re not there on infrastructure: The concept they claim (hedging tool) contradicts the reality they deliver (betting platform). You can’t own a concept if you’re not that concept.

Level 1 Assessment: Claiming It

Test: How clear is their articulation? Does framing stem from owned concepts or just describe products?

Kalshi’s Level 1 execution is exceptional:

“The first CFTC-regulated financial exchange dedicated to trading event contracts” is perfect framing. Every word chosen for regulatory defence and positioning clarity.

• “Event contracts” not “bets”
• “Trading” not “gambling”
• “Financial exchange” not “betting platform”
• “CFTC-regulated” in every single communication
• “Wisdom of crowds” for intellectual credibility
• “Democratizing finance” for social license

The problem: They’re confusing framing clarity with positioning strength.

Level 1 without Level 4 is just better articulation of a concept you don’t own. They’ve perfected framing for “hedging infrastructure” while accidentally building ownership of “regulated betting.”

Duration: 3-6 months to perfect framing. They’ve spent 4+ years perfecting it.

Verdict: Exceptional Level 1, best-in-class articulation of the wrong concept

The trap most companies fall into: Endless refinement of messaging, value props, taglines. Thinking if they just articulate it better, they’ll own it. Wrong level.

Level 2 Assessment: Proving It

Test: Can they specify what changes, by how much, and how they verified them?

Here’s where it breaks down.

What they claim to prove: “Better risk management through direct event exposure”

What they actually prove: “Better odds than sportsbooks because peer-to-peer exchange”

Watch the language shift:

For hedging positioning: “85% accurate on inflation forecasts” (proving information value)
Reality check: Who’s using this for hedging? Most users are betting on sports.

Can a CFO verify their value?

If you’re positioning as “risk management tool,” the CFO should verify: “Our portfolio volatility decreased X% due to event contract hedging.” They can’t because that’s not what happens.

If you’re positioning as “better odds for betting,” users verify: “I made more money here than on DraftKings due to no house edge.” They can because that’s what actually happens.

The gap: They’re proving Level 2 execution for the wrong concept (betting efficiency) while claiming a different concept (hedging value).

Verdict: Strong Level 2 execution, but proving the wrong thing

Duration: 6-12 months to build proof. They’ve had 4 years and are still proving betting value while claiming hedging value.

Level 3 Assessment: Living It

Test: Does resource allocation (70%+) align with positioning? Is it embedded organizationally?

Structural commitment to “regulated financial exchange”:

• Built an entire compliance infrastructure
• Acquired clearinghouse for end-to-end control
• Proprietary surveillance systems
• Segregated customer funds
• Institutional-grade APIs
• Legal team larger than most fintech startups

70%+ resources on positioning-critical capabilities? Absolutely. Regulatory compliance isn’t a side project — it’s the entire organizational identity.

But here’s the problem:

If the position is “hedging everyday risk”:

• Why is 70-98% volume from sports?
• Why aggressive campus marketing?
• Why viral TikTok campaigns?
• Why “Bet on the NFL, Legal in 50 states” ads?

If the position is “legal betting on anything”:

• Everything makes sense
• Sports naturally dominates
• Broad marketing attracts volume
• Playful brand fits speculation

Verdict: Strong Level 3 alignment with actual position (regulated betting), weak alignment with claimed position (hedging)

They’ve built the structure for “regulated exchange,” but the market sees them as “regulated betting platform.” Strong structural alignment with the wrong concept articulation.

Duration: 12-24 months to embed. They spent 3+ years building this.

The Gap Analysis: The Level Confusion Trap

Where they’re exceptionally strong:

• Level 1 (Claiming): Best-in-class articulation of “CFTC-regulated financial exchange”
• Level 3 (Living): Full structural commitment to regulatory compliance

Where they’re weak:

• Level 4 (Owning): Don’t own “legitimacy” or “infrastructure” as concepts. Just hold the temporal “first CFTC-approved” advantage
• Level 2 (Proving): Proving betting efficiency when claiming hedging value

What this explains:

Why growth explodes but retention collapses post-events: They’re proving betting value (Level 2), not hedging value, so users come for events then leave.

Why state regulators fight them despite CFTC approval: They can see the Level 2 reality (betting) contradicts the Level 1 claims (financial instruments).

Why institutional partnerships matter so much: Without Level 4 ownership, they need Level 3 structural validation (NHL, Robinhood, Susquehanna) to manufacture legitimacy.

Why they’re vulnerable to CME: A true financial institution launching will have instant Level 4 ownership of “legitimate” and “institutional” in ways Kalshi can only claim.

The critical insight: Kalshi is perfecting Level 1 articulation while thinking it creates Level 4 ownership. They’ve built Level 3 structure for a concept they don’t actually own at Level 4. And they’re proving Level 2 execution for a different concept than they claim.

This is a linguistic hierarchy violation at scale.

Part 4: The Identity Layer

Customer Identity: The Sophisticated Gambler

Who actually becomes a Kalshi customer? Not the corporate risk manager hedging weather exposure. Not the portfolio manager protecting against inflation.

The identity: “I’m too smart to use DraftKings.”

The CFTC approval provides what psychologists call “moral licensing,” a way to engage in behaviour (gambling) while protecting identity (I’m not a gambler, I’m a trader).

User testimonials reveal this:

• “Best sportsbetting app by far” (explicit sports betting identity)
• “Trading on the S&P and Nasdaq markets has been useful to generate daily income” (trader, not hedger identity)
• “I love that it’s CFTC-regulated” (legitimacy providing identity protection)

What using Kalshi says about someone:

• “I’m sophisticated enough to use a financial exchange”
• “I understand probability and markets”
• “I’m not some degenerate gambler”
• “I’m an early adopter of a new asset class”

The three actual customer segments:

Segment 1: Identity-Protected Bettors (70-98% of volume)
Want to bet on sports but need regulatory legitimacy to maintain self-concept as “sophisticated.” Kalshi lets them bet while calling it trading.

Segment 2: Prediction Market Natives (5-10% of volume)
Actually believe in wisdom of crowds, information markets, truth-seeking. These are the customers Kalshi showcases, but who drive minimal volume.

Segment 3: Arbitrageurs and Market Makers (<5% of volume)
Professional traders exploiting inefficiencies. They’re here for edge, not identity.

The identity gap: Kalshi positions itself for Segment 2 (information markets), while revenue is generated from Segment 1 (identity-protected betting).

Founder Identity: The Outsider Narrative

Mansour and Lopes Lara position themselves as outsiders disrupting elite finance. Lebanese immigrant. Brazilian ballerina before MIT CS. Both are first-generation, fighting establishment institutions.

The origin myth: While Goldman, Citadel, and Bridgewater created complex derivatives for elites, Kalshi democratizes direct event exposure for everyone.

This founder identity shapes every strategic decision:

Why fight CFTC for 18 months instead of going offshore: Outsider proving they belong by winning on the establishment’s terms

Why emphasize “marathon mentality” and “grit”: Immigrant work ethic mythology

Why provocative marketing (“world’s gone mad”): Challenger brand opposing status quo

Why “democratizing finance” narrative: Outsider mission of opening exclusive systems

What they can’t see: Their outsider identity makes them over-index on regulatory legitimacy (proving belonging) when the market just wants better betting. The identity need shaped the strategy.

Identity-Level Alignment: The Fundamental Mismatch

Does customer identity align with claimed position (Level 1)?

Claimed position: “Risk management tool for sophisticated hedging”
Customer identity: “I’m a smart bettor using a regulated platform”

No alignment. Customers don’t identify as hedgers. They identify as smart enough to use an exchange instead of a sportsbook.

Does customer identity align with owned position (Level 4)?

They don’t own a clear Level 4 position yet. They’re building toward “regulated betting on anything” but won’t claim it because it contradicts the sophistication narrative founders need.

The identity gap creating friction:

Positioning says: “You’re a sophisticated risk manager”
Customer feels: “I’m betting on sports with better odds and regulatory cover”

This gap explains:

• Why liquidity is the #1 complaint (bettors need depth; hedgers need coverage)
• Why retention is event-driven (bettors follow games; hedgers maintain positions)
• Why states sue them (everyone sees through the framing to the reality)
• Why employee culture feels schizophrenic (building for hedgers, serving bettors)

Part 5: The Success Mechanics

What’s Actually Working

1. Regulatory moat creates distribution gravity

The CFTC approval isn’t just positioning; it’s an actual strategic moat. Competitors must either:

• Go offshore (Polymarket’s path, creates U.S. friction)
• Get CFTC approval (3-year hell process)
• Operate state-by-state (fragmented, expensive)

This moat enabled:

• Robinhood partnership (24.8M customers overnight)
• NHL validation (mainstream legitimacy)
• Susquehanna liquidity (institutional participation)
• Nationwide operation claim (50 states vs. state-by-state)

The position chose the distribution. Once you own “federally regulated,” partnerships with regulated institutions become obvious.

2. Identity protection driving volume

Customers don’t just want better odds. They want identity protection. “I trade event contracts on a CFTC-regulated exchange” sounds better than “I bet on sports.”

This explains explosive sports volume. These aren’t hedgers, they’re bettors who found regulatory cover for their identity.

3. Level 3 structural commitment preventing competitors

Building a clearinghouse, surveillance, and compliance infrastructure creates massive barriers. Anyone can copy Level 1 framing. Few will invest in Level 3 structure.

This explains why they’re still the only CFTC-approved prediction market after 5 years.

4. Gravitational pull from “first” advantage

Being first CFTC-approved creates network effects:

• First gets institutional partnerships
• First gets press coverage as a category definition
• First gets regulatory precedent
• First shapes category narrative

This made tactics “feel obvious.” They weren’t discovering strategy; they were riding momentum from position.

What They’re Missing

1. The concept they claim isn’t the concept they deliver

Claiming “hedging tool” while delivering “betting platform” creates five problems:

Problem 1: Product-market misalignment
Building for hedgers (economic indicators, weather), but revenue from sports bettors. Resources misallocated.

Problem 2: Regulatory vulnerability
States see through the framing. Six states call it gambling. Claiming hedging while doing betting undermines legal defence.

Problem 3: Metric confusion
Tracking hedging-appropriate metrics (accuracy, information value) while actual success drivers are betting metrics (volume, odds, liquidity).

Problem 4: Identity confusion
Employees think they’re building financial infrastructure. Customers use it for sports betting. Creates cultural disconnect.

Problem 5: Competition blindness
Competing against Polymarket when real competition is DraftKings and FanDuel. Wrong competitive set because of the wrong concept.

2. Level confusion blocking growth

They’re perfecting Level 1 (claiming) thinking it creates Level 4 (owning).

Evidence:

• Endless framing refinement (“event contracts” not “bets”)
• Communication obsession (every interview mentions CFTC regulation)
• Messaging discipline (no one says “gambling” internally)

But Level 1 clarity doesn’t create Level 4 ownership. Framing is not position.

3. Missing the concept they could actually own

They have an opening: “The exchange for betting.”

Not “regulated” (CME will claim that). Not “legitimate” (too contested). Not “hedging” (false).

But “exchange” is available. DraftKings, FanDuel, offshore sites — all bookmakers. Kalshi’s peer-to-peer model is genuinely different.

If they owned “exchange” as the noun:

• “Where smart bettors trade” (aligns reality with positioning)
• “Transparent odds through order matching” (proves Level 2 with real differentiation)
• “Trade your position before outcome” (exchange feature sportsbooks lack)

This aligns Level 1 (claiming), Level 2 (proving), and Level 4 (owning) around a concept that’s true and defensible.

But they can’t claim it because “exchange for betting” contradicts the identity protection model that drove early growth.

4. CME threat reveals hollow positioning

CME Group launches prediction markets in December 2025. World’s largest derivatives exchange. Actually knows how to run an exchange. Actually has institutional relationships.

If Kalshi owns “legitimacy” (Level 4), this shouldn’t threaten them. But it does. Because they don’t own legitimacy, they just claimed it first (Level 1).

The existential question: What happens when a more legitimate institution enters? Answer: Kalshi gets squeezed unless they actually own a concept.

Part 6: The Coaching Moment

The Reframing Questions

Stop asking: “How do we convince institutions to use us for hedging?”
Start asking: “What concept do we actually own that institutions could adopt?”

You don’t own “hedging.” You own “regulation” in prediction markets. Institutions adopt because of compliance needs, not because event contracts are better hedging instruments.

Stop asking: “How do we balance retail entertainment with institutional credibility?”
Start asking: “What if retail entertainment WITH institutional-grade regulation IS the position?”

The tension is self-created. Owning “legitimate speculation at scale” is a massive, defensible position. Trying to also own “institutional hedging infrastructure” dilutes both.

Stop asking: “Which features differentiate us?”
Start asking: “What mental territory do we monopolize?”

CFTC designation is your perceptual monopoly. Everything else is table stakes. Stop listing it as “one of many benefits” and recognize it as THE position.

Stop asking: “How do we articulate our value proposition?”
Start asking: “Do we own the concept we’re articulating?”

You’ve perfected Level 1 framing of infrastructure. But you don’t own it at Level 4. You own regulation, but underarticulate it.

Level-Specific Recommendations

Primary Diagnosis: Operating at Level 1 (Claiming) without Level 4 (Owning)

You have exceptional articulation of “CFTC-regulated financial exchange,” but don’t own “legitimacy,” “regulation,” or “financial instruments” in customer minds. You own “the CFTC-approved betting platform,” which isn’t what you claim.

The 6-12 Month Fix:

Month 1-2: Pause all framing work
Stop refining messaging. Stop testing taglines. Stop perfecting the “event contracts” language. You’ve mastered Level 1. More work there won’t help.

Month 2-4: Map actual mental territory

• What concepts are owned: “Legitimacy” (CME), “Betting” (DraftKings/FanDuel), “Information markets” (contested)
• What concepts are vacant: “Exchange for betting,” “Transparent odds,” “Trade don’t bet”
• What you actually own: “Regulated way to bet” (narrow, temporal)

Month 4-6: Select concept and commit

Option A: Own “The Exchange” (recommended)

• Concept: Where betting becomes trading through an exchange structure
• Differentiation: Order matching vs. house odds, exit early, transparent pricing
• Proof: Can demonstrate better odds mathematically, can show early exit value
• Timeline: 24-36 months to own “exchange” in betting context

Option B: Own “Event Intelligence”

• Concept: Where markets predict reality better than experts
• Differentiation: Crowd forecasting vs. institutional analysis
• Proof: 85% accuracy vs. 20% for experts
• Timeline: 36-48 months, requires sustained accuracy

Option C: Actually own “Legitimacy”

• Stop sports, focus on economic hedging, and prove corporate risk management value
• Unlikely to work: Can’t out-legitimate CME, and sports revenue too large to abandon

Month 6-12: Rebuild everything from concept

Once committed:

• Framing flows from concept owned
• Proof focuses on demonstrating concept
• Structure supports concept delivery
• Hiring finds people who embody concept

Secondary Diagnosis: Strong Level 2 (Proving) for Wrong Concept

You’re proving betting efficiency when claiming hedging value.

The 6-12 Month Fix:

Define what actually changes:

If “exchange” concept:

• Specific KPI: Customer P&L improvement vs. equivalent sportsbook bets
• Baseline: 1000 random DraftKings bets, calculate expected return
• Timeframe: 90 days of parallel tracking
• Verification: Third-party audit of comparative returns

Specify exactly what you move:

• “Betting return increases X% due to no house edge”
• “Position exit optionality worth Y% in risk reduction”
• “Price discovery Z milliseconds faster than bookmaker updates”

Tertiary Diagnosis: Identity Mismatch Creating Retention Problems

You’re positioned to serve hedgers and sports bettors, but neither group is fully satisfied.

The 12-24 Month Fix:

Option 1: Embrace actual customer identity

• Acknowledge you serve sophisticated bettors
• Rebuild for betting use cases with exchange structure
• Hire from betting industry, not finance
• Design for sports as core, not periphery
• Risk: Regulatory vulnerability increases

Option 2: Split platform by identity

• Kalshi Exchange: Sports betting with exchange structure (retail)
• Kalshi Risk: Corporate hedging and institutional (B2B)
• Different UX, different branding, different go-to-market
• Risk: Dilutes resources, complex operationally

Option 3: Actually serve hedgers

• Drop sports or de-emphasize severely
• Prove risk reduction in economic hedging use cases
• Partner with corporations for actual risk management pilots
• Build for CFOs, not retail bettors
• Risk: Revenue collapse

Strategic Recommendations

What to deepen:

Your regulatory moat and Level 3 structural commitment are real advantages. Keep investing there. CME threat is real, but they’ll take 18 months to build what you have.

What to abandon:

Stop pretending sports volume is about hedging. Stop perfecting Level 1 framing of “financial instruments.” Stop competing on “legitimacy” (you’ll lose to CME). Stop targeting “sophisticated risk managers” when serving “sophisticated bettors.”

What metrics actually matter:

Not message clarity. You’ve nailed that.
Not brand awareness. You’re crushing it.

What matters:

1. Concept ownership: Do customers think “Kalshi” when they think “X”? What is X? Measure through brand recall without prompting.
2. Identity alignment: Are customers using you for claimed use case (hedging) or actual use case (betting)? Measure through session behaviour.
3. Level 4 progress: Are you owning a concept or just articulating well? Measure through: remove-your-name test, competitor positioning analysis.
4. Retention by segment: Sports bettors vs. hedgers vs. prediction market natives. Which actually stay?

What decisions reinforce vs. weaken:

Reinforce position:

• Any move toward exchange structure differentiation
• Proof of better outcomes vs. alternatives
• Structural commitments to liquidity and price discovery

Weaken position:

• More framing refinement without concept selection
• Claiming concepts you don’t prove (hedging without hedgers)
• Expansion without concept clarity (every new market dilutes)
• Copying sportsbook features (undermines exchange differentiation)

The Uncomfortable Truth

You’ve built an exceptional business on exceptional execution of an incoherent positioning strategy.

You claim “hedging” while delivering “betting.”
You articulate “financial instruments” while owning “regulated gambling.”
You position yourself as “sophisticated risk managers” while serving “identity-protected bettors.”

This worked until now because:

1. Regulatory moat prevented competition
2. Sports volume grew faster than positioning contradictions mattered
3. Institutional partnerships validated claimed position regardless of reality
4. First-mover advantage in novel category created a gravitational pull

It will stop working when:

1. CME launches with actual institutional legitimacy (12-24 months)
2. State courts rule you’re gambling despite federal approval (ongoing)
3. Sports betting platforms add exchange features (24-36 months)
4. Your own scale makes the position contradiction unsustainable (approaching)

You have 12-18 months to either:

• Own the concept you actually deliver (exchange for betting)
• Deliver the concept you actually claim (hedging instruments)
• Split into two businesses with two concepts

Operating at Level 1 (claiming) while thinking you’re at Level 4 (owning) isn’t sustainable. Perfect articulation of an incoherent position is still incoherent.

The question isn’t whether you’ll succeed. You already have a $5B valuation, $50B volume, and a dominant market share.

The question is whether you’ll keep it. That requires moving from claiming a concept to owning one. From Level 1 to Level 4. From verbs to nouns.

From “we enable trading in event contracts” to “we are ___.”

Fill in that blank, actually embody it, and prove it. t

Then you’ll own it.

Right now, the blank is empty. You’re trading on exceptional framing and first-mover advantage. That’s not nothing. But it’s not a position.

Build one.

---

Uncover your position

Before you hire a messaging consultant to wordsmith your homepage, or an agency to “refresh your brand,” or someone to fix what they’ll call positioning (but is really just tactical framing), try this first.

The CEO Clarity Starter Kit

It does exactly what we just read. It helps you find and own your noun.

What you do:

• Run the Position Audit (reveals what noun you might already own without knowing it)
• Complete the 8-Question Advisor (the same questions that would surface “regulated certainty” for Kalshi)
• Feed the output into ClarityGPT (included)

What you get:

• Your noun. The concept you can actually own, not just claim
• A 4-Level Positioning Canvas showing how to move from saying it to OWNING it
• ClarityGPT translates your position into landing pages, offers, and LinkedIn profiles (written in your buyer’s voice, not consultant-speak)
• A 30-day positioning course so you can apply this method without me

Time required: About an hour (less time than reading three more case studies about tactics that won’t work without position)

Who’s used it: 200+ CEOs and founders who were tired of pushing uphill

Investment: $249 USD

Most realize they don’t need the consultant or agency after this. Or they need far less than they thought. Because once you know your noun (your position), the tactics become obvious. The distribution chooses itself. The customers explain you better than you explain yourself.

And yes, if you buy the kit, it nudges me closer to that Porsche in the photo. Thanks in advance for supporting excellent positioning and questionable life choices.

Stop competing on features. Start owning concepts.

Get your CEO Clarity Starter Kit