CFTC Regulation 40.2(a) Notification Regarding the Initial Listing of the “Will <above/below/exactly/at least/at most/between> <count> nominees for <award> at the 2026 Billboard Music Awards be women?” Contract
KalshiEX LLC · received by the CFTC 13 October 2026 · the filing (PDF)
Summary
Warrant Check read 7 operative provisions in this filing. Across them, 17 of 42 checks are present, 6 partial and 19 absent. 1 provision has every check present. 1 rule on who may trade is not a settlement term and is left out.
17 present6 partial19 absentWhat the wording addresses
- Payout Criterion (count/gender comparison) — every check present.
“is <above/below/exactly/at least/at most/between> <count>” - Gender attribute determination: Independent Verification, Defined Benchmark, Conclusive Link, Comprehensive Coverage, Relevant Timeline.
“the nominee has publicly self-identified as having the attribute described” - No data resolution: Defined Benchmark, Conclusive Link, Comprehensive Coverage, Relevant Timeline.
“If there is no data for the Underlying” - Material error correction: Comprehensive Coverage, Relevant Timeline.
“the correction remedies a material error in the initial value”
What the wording leaves open
- Gender attribute determination “the nominee has publicly self-identified as having the attribute described”
- Suitable Method — Partial: The rule establishes a defined/constructed status ('counted ... irrespective of actual attributes'), which the reporting procedure can support, but relies on reporters' word choices (pronouns, descriptive terms) as proxies.
- No data resolution “If there is no data for the Underlying”
- Independent Verification — Partial: Evidence is the absence of publication across a list of named Source Agencies - a negative fact, harder for a third party to verify than an affirmative document.
- Suitable Method — Partial: Checking a finite list of named outlets for publication can support a 'no official announcement' finding, but proving a universal negative is inherently looser than a positive test.
- Material error correction “the correction remedies a material error in the initial value”
- Independent Verification — Absent: The determination rests entirely on 'the Exchange determines, in its sole discretion' - a party's own say-so, not a receivable third-party certificate or test.
- Suitable Method — Absent: Sole discretion is not a checkable procedure; nothing external can verify whether the asserted 'material error' threshold was actually met.
- Defined Benchmark — Partial: The term 'material error' is named but left wholly undefined - an elastic standard with no criteria.
- Conclusive Link — Partial: Because the standard itself is undefined, whether 'remedying' it establishes the claim cannot be confirmed beyond Kalshi's own judgment.
- Ambiguity/dispute resolution via Rule 7.1 “Continuing ambiguity or dispute will be resolved by Kalshi”
- Independent Verification — Absent: Resolution is by Kalshi itself, not a named neutral third-party certificate, test, or document; Rule 7.1's content is not supplied.
- Suitable Method — Absent: No procedure is described beyond Kalshi's own resolution; nothing checkable establishes the claim at any defined level of certainty.
- Defined Benchmark — Absent: No threshold or criterion for resolving the ambiguity is stated here or supplied via Rule 7.1's text.
- Conclusive Link — Absent: no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
- Comprehensive Coverage — Absent: No defined population or boundary for what counts as 'continuing ambiguity' is given.
- Relevant Timeline — Absent: No time limit or window for when this resolution process applies is stated.
- Relies on material referred to but not in the public filing.
- Death/violence contingency settlement “Kalshi may, in its sole discretion, settle the Contract”
- Independent Verification — Absent: Trigger determination rests on Kalshi 'reasonably believes' / 'determines' - its own judgment, not a named neutral source or document.
- Suitable Method — Absent: No procedure beyond internal belief/determination is specified, yet the consequence (final, unreviewable price) asserts very high certainty.
- Defined Benchmark — Absent: No objective threshold for 'materially affected' trading or for when a last traded price is 'fair' is named.
- Conclusive Link — Absent: no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
- Comprehensive Coverage — Absent: No defined population/criteria for identifying the relevant 'last traded price' window is given beyond discretion.
- Relevant Timeline — Partial: References 'prior to the death or act' and allows 'an approximate time', loosely bounding the period.
- Contingencies / Market Outcome Review for undeterminable Expiration Value “Kalshi has the right to determine payouts pursuant to Rule”
- Independent Verification — Absent: Relies on Kalshi's own right/discretion to determine payouts; Rule 7.1's evidentiary basis is not supplied.
- Suitable Method — Absent: No external procedure is named; the clause substitutes discretion for a checkable method.
- Defined Benchmark — Absent: No criterion is given for when an Expiration Value 'cannot be determined'.
- Conclusive Link — Absent: no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
- Comprehensive Coverage — Absent: No population or boundary is specified for this discretionary payout-setting power.
- Relevant Timeline — Absent: No window is specified beyond 'on the Expiration Date', with no limit on how Rule 7.1 proceedings may extend.
- Relies on material referred to but not in the public filing.
Every provision read
Payout Criterion (count/gender comparison)
“is <above/below/exactly/at least/at most/between> <count>”
Determination: the number of nominees for <award> who are women meets the stated comparator against <count> · Consequence: Market Outcome is set to Yes or No, triggering payment to long or short position holders
Present Independent Verification. Evidence is the official announcement of finalists as published by Billboard and ranked Source Agencies - a receivable document, not a party's opinion.
Present Suitable Method. Counting named individual nominees in a published list and comparing to a numeric threshold is a procedure capable of establishing the exact count claimed.
Present Defined Benchmark. A precise numeric comparator (<count>) against a defined operator (above/below/exactly/etc.) is named.
Present Conclusive Link. Satisfying the numeric comparison as defined directly constitutes the claimed condition - no gap between threshold and claim.
Present Comprehensive Coverage. Covers 'all finalist entries announced for <award>', a population matching the claim's scope exactly.
Present Relevant Timeline. Expiration Value is fixed 'as documented ... on the Expiration Date at the Expiration time', matching the one-offnature of the claim.
Gender attribute determination
“the nominee has publicly self-identified as having the attribute described”
Determination: a given nominee is counted among the nominees 'who are women' per the self-identification/Source-Agency-report rule · Consequence: that nominee is included (or excluded) in the count used for the Payout Criterion
Present Independent Verification. Evidence is self-identification or characterization as reported by a named Source Agency - a receivable, documented report rather than Kalshi's opinion.
Partial Suitable Method. The rule establishes a defined/constructed status ('counted ... irrespective of actual attributes'), which the reporting procedure can support, but relies on reporters' word choices (pronouns, descriptive terms) as proxies.
Present Defined Benchmark. Clear hierarchy: self-identification controls; absent that, Source Agency characterization controls absent contrary self-ID.
Present Conclusive Link. Because the clause defines the claim exactly as 'meets this reporting condition', satisfying the condition is definitionally the claim.
Present Comprehensive Coverage. Applied individually to each named nominee, matching the per-nominee scope of the claim.
Present Relevant Timeline. Measured 'as of 11:59 PM ET on the date of release of the official announcement', matching the claim's intended cut-off.
No data resolution
“If there is no data for the Underlying”
Determination: no data for the Underlying has been published by any Source Agency by the Expiration Date · Consequence: markets resolve to last fair price (Exchange discretion), or 'No data' strike resolves Yes and others No, or all resolve No if the series is discontinued
Partial Independent Verification. Evidence is the absence of publication across a list of named Source Agencies - a negative fact, harder for a third party to verify than an affirmative document.
Partial Suitable Method. Checking a finite list of named outlets for publication can support a 'no official announcement' finding, but proving a universal negative is inherently looser than a positive test.
Present Defined Benchmark. Standard named: 'no official announcement of finalists ... by the Expiration Date'.
Present Conclusive Link. Absence of publication by the Expiration Date is defined to constitute 'no data', so meeting it establishes the claim as defined.
Present Comprehensive Coverage. Covers all Source Agencies listed in the hierarchy, matching the claim's intended population.
Present Relevant Timeline. Bounded explicitly 'by the Expiration Date'.
Material error correction
“the correction remedies a material error in the initial value”
Determination: a subsequent correction/retraction by a Source Agency remedies a 'material error' in the initial published value · Consequence: the corrected value governs instead of the initial value (or expiration may be delayed)
Absent Independent Verification. The determination rests entirely on 'the Exchange determines, in its sole discretion' - a party's own say-so, not a receivable third-party certificate or test.
Absent Suitable Method. Sole discretion is not a checkable procedure; nothing external can verify whether the asserted 'material error' threshold was actually met.
Partial Defined Benchmark. The term 'material error' is named but left wholly undefined - an elastic standard with no criteria.
Partial Conclusive Link. Because the standard itself is undefined, whether 'remedying' it establishes the claim cannot be confirmed beyond Kalshi's own judgment.
Present Comprehensive Coverage. Applies to the specific published value/correction at issue, matching the narrow scope of the claim.
Present Relevant Timeline. Expressly limited to corrections 'prior to Expiration'; post-Expiration corrections are excluded, matching the claim's intended window.
Ambiguity/dispute resolution via Rule 7.1
“Continuing ambiguity or dispute will be resolved by Kalshi”
Determination: an ambiguity or conflict among Source Agencies as to nominees or attributes exists and is resolved · Consequence: Kalshi's resolution under Rule 7.1 becomes determinative of the Market Outcome
Absent Independent Verification. Resolution is by Kalshi itself, not a named neutral third-party certificate, test, or document; Rule 7.1's content is not supplied.
Absent Suitable Method. No procedure is described beyond Kalshi's own resolution; nothing checkable establishes the claim at any defined level of certainty.
Absent Defined Benchmark. No threshold or criterion for resolving the ambiguity is stated here or supplied via Rule 7.1's text.
Absent Conclusive Link. no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
Absent Comprehensive Coverage. No defined population or boundary for what counts as 'continuing ambiguity' is given.
Absent Relevant Timeline. No time limit or window for when this resolution process applies is stated.
Death/violence contingency settlement
“Kalshi may, in its sole discretion, settle the Contract”
Determination: a natural person central to the Underlying died, or an act of violence/terrorism directly affected the event, materially affecting trading · Consequence: Kalshi (or the Outcome Review Committee) sets a final, non-reviewable settlement price
Absent Independent Verification. Trigger determination rests on Kalshi 'reasonably believes' / 'determines' - its own judgment, not a named neutral source or document.
Absent Suitable Method. No procedure beyond internal belief/determination is specified, yet the consequence (final, unreviewable price) asserts very high certainty.
Absent Defined Benchmark. No objective threshold for 'materially affected' trading or for when a last traded price is 'fair' is named.
Absent Conclusive Link. no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
Absent Comprehensive Coverage. No defined population/criteria for identifying the relevant 'last traded price' window is given beyond discretion.
Partial Relevant Timeline. References 'prior to the death or act' and allows 'an approximate time', loosely bounding the period.
Contingencies / Market Outcome Review for undeterminable Expiration Value
“Kalshi has the right to determine payouts pursuant to Rule”
Determination: the Expiration Value cannot be determined on the Expiration Date · Consequence: Kalshi determines payouts under Rule 7.1 rather than by the stated Payout Criterion mechanics
Absent Independent Verification. Relies on Kalshi's own right/discretion to determine payouts; Rule 7.1's evidentiary basis is not supplied.
Absent Suitable Method. No external procedure is named; the clause substitutes discretion for a checkable method.
Absent Defined Benchmark. No criterion is given for when an Expiration Value 'cannot be determined'.
Absent Conclusive Link. no named standard - entailment cannot be assessed
Absent Comprehensive Coverage. No population or boundary is specified for this discretionary payout-setting power.
Absent Relevant Timeline. No window is specified beyond 'on the Expiration Date', with no limit on how Rule 7.1 proceedings may extend.
Read 31 October 2026 with Warrant Check (instrument 1.0). Labels: Present, Partial, Absent describe whether each check is found in the wording as written.