Markets › Kalshi › Politics
Court rules Visa violated antitrust law on debit on Kalshi
If any federal court rules that Visa Inc. violated Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act on any claim for relief asserted by the United States in United States v. Visa Inc., No. 1:24-cv-07214 (S.D.N.Y.), or any appeal of that action before Jan 1, 2030, then the market resolves to Yes.
Settles on: CourtListener, Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).
The cover charge
| If you buy at | Fee per contract | On $50 | Win rate to break even |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30¢ | 1.5¢ | $2.45 | 31.5% |
| 50¢ | 1.8¢ | $1.75 | 51.7% |
| 62¢ (now) | 1.6¢ | $1.33 | 63.6% |
| 70¢ | 1.5¢ | $1.05 | 71.5% |
| 90¢ | 0.6¢ | $0.35 | 90.6% |
Resting orders pay no fee on this series. Formula: 7% × contracts × price × (1 − price), rounded up, on orders that take liquidity. Break-even assumes you hold to settlement; trading out early pays the fee twice.
Open contracts right now
| Contract | YES price | Implied | Fee at this price | Real-world odds | Luck needed | Volume | Closes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Will any federal court rule rules that Visa Inc. violated Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act on any claim for relief asserted by the United States? · Before 2030 | 62¢ | 62% | 1.6¢ | — | 75% | 176 | Jan 01, 04:59 UTC |
Who actually wins this market
- Whoever posts the resting orders and collects the spread without paying a fee.
- The venue, on every fee.
- Not, on average, the person clicking buy because the chart is going their way. That was us.
Still want to play? Read the deal first: what the account asks for, what the bonus really is, and whether we are paid. Vendors sell bots for markets like this one; see the bot benchmark before you pay for one.