# Kalshi Faces Criticism Over Transparency and Loss Classifications Kalshi's rebuttal to the Roosevelt Institute report sparks debate. - **Source:** [ReadWrite](https://brifing.si/source/7a996b61-bc09-4e57-8483-78f2ad9dd914) - **Published:** 2026-07-13 - **Topic:** [Finance](https://brifing.si/c/finance) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/d246c6cc-6693-4543-bee5-f869b95b4204 ## The Dispute Between Kalshi and the Roosevelt Institute Kalshi rejected the Roosevelt Institute's analysis of retail trading losses, arguing that institutional market makers were conflated with retail users. This raised questions about the transparency of user classifications on the platform. ## Loss Estimates and Criticisms The Roosevelt Institute estimated that Kalshi and Polymarket users would lose approximately $583.5 million by 2025. Kalshi claimed these estimates misleadingly attributed institutional losses to retail users. ## The Gap Between Institutional and Retail Users Critics argued that Kalshi presented institutional market makers as peers to retail users, despite the former having distinct advantages like fee discounts and technological integrations. ## Platform Growth and the Dual Face of Losses Kalshi highlights institutional trading when discussing platform growth but treats it differently when losses are the focus. This dual approach has raised doubts about the company's consistency. ## Parlay Products and Retail Outcomes Kalshi's parlay products offer a new way to measure retail losses. Since app users cannot act as liquidity providers, these products are seen as a clearer indicator of retail outcomes. ## Transparency and Trust Issues Kalshi's rebuttal has brought serious questions about the platform's transparency to light. Critics emphasize that inconsistencies in user classifications undermine trust and call for clearer communication. ## Sources covering this story - https://readwrite.com/critics-kalshi-roosevelt-retail-trading-loss-classifications-transparency/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._