Wedgewood admitted on Oct. 20 that most of the polling firm's election surveys were fabricated. VoteHub carried Wedgewood's results and supplies data for recurring Kalshi contracts. Any effect of the fabricated surveys on Kalshi settlements remains unproven. Kalshi's ability to reverse payouts after confirmed fraud also remains unclear.
Kalshi's Sept. 12, 2025 certification identifies VoteHub's time-adjusted polling average as the underlying for VOTEHUBAPPROVE contracts and fixes settlement values when contracts expire. Kalshi's filing states that "revisions to the Underlying made after Expiration will not be accounted for in determining the Expiration Value." A fallback provision uses the latest eligible average before the specified date when the relevant VoteHub average is unavailable. The rulebook determines how that fallback treats a subsequent retraction. Fixed observation times give traders a definitive settlement reference, but settlement then depends on the data available at that moment being reliable.
FiftyPlusOne researchers obtained raw data for Wedgewood's Mississippi Senate survey and identified inconsistencies in respondent identifiers and transaction records. The researchers commissioned another survey through Pollfish, the same provider, and found materially different records. Wedgewood described one Nebraska survey as legitimate when admitting the fabrication. VoteHub head of data science Zachary Donnini said Donnini spoke with a Wedgewood representative before accepting the firm's polling. Donnini said VoteHub assigned Wedgewood a D grade but nevertheless included Wedgewood's data. The Guardian also reported that VoteHub's polling database included Wedgewood's results.
Kalshi's Oct. 20 generic congressional ballot contract, KXVHGCB-26OCT20, settles Yes if VoteHub's time-weighted Democratic-minus-Republican margin equals the specified percentage at observation. The contract concerns a VoteHub reading rather than the eventual election winner. Traders therefore face risks involving VoteHub's methodology, publication timing and correction practices. The 2025 filing specifies the first available reading at 10 a.m. Eastern after the designated date. However, the Oct. 20 market page identifies 5:05 p.m. Eastern on that date as the observation time. The current-series rulebook needs confirmation because the September filing establishes a revision exclusion but does not establish that exclusion's application to the October series.
VoteHub's 35-page methodology says the Complete forecasting model uses polls, fundamentals, expert judgments and Kalshi prices. The methodology gives markets more weight in competitive races or races with limited polling, subject to a cap. The methodology describes a separate Legacy model that uses polling and fundamentals. The methodology also recognizes possible feedback loops when forecasts use market prices and traders then use those forecasts. However, the settlement polling average and the forecast are separate products, with market prices entering the forecast rather than the average. Traders need clear distinctions between polling observations, forecasts and tradable probabilities when those measures circulate together.
A hypothetical contract requiring 8% would retain a Yes settlement after a correction from 8% to 7.8%, assuming the revision exclusion applies as written. The rule provides settlement certainty but could preserve a payout based on fabricated data, a more serious problem than an ordinary methodology revision. Wedgewood's identified fabricated surveys concerned state races, whereas the example Kalshi contract tracks a national average. No demonstrated connection establishes that Wedgewood's data changed that national average or any payout.
The Associated Press reported in August that a candidate-linked Kalshi contract moved about two cents within 15 minutes after Median Strategies published a fabricated Los Angeles mayoral poll. A group of Polymarket accounts subsequently traded in the same direction. AP did not establish who owned the accounts or whether the trades generated profits. That episode concerned an election-outcome contract rather than settlement against a polling average.
Kalshi could document safeguards while preserving settlement certainty by confirming the governing October rulebook, archiving timestamped settlement inputs and explaining how traders can dispute fabricated source data. VoteHub could improve transparency by identifying which Wedgewood surveys entered VoteHub's averages and when VoteHub removed those surveys. A payout based on a subsequently withdrawn reading would test the exchange and aggregator if the revision exclusion prevented adjustment. Election contracts will become more numerous toward Nov. 3, with each contract depending on third-party data screened before settlement becomes final.
Kalshi's Election Contracts Face Fraud Risks from Fake Wedgewood Polls
CryptoSlateShare
Summary
A report from FLASH AI shows Wedgewood, a polling firm, admitted to fabricating most of its election surveys. VoteHub, which provides on-chain data for Kalshi contracts, used Wedgewood’s results. Kalshi’s September 2025 certification relies on VoteHub’s time-adjusted polling average for VOTEHUBAPPROVE contracts. The rulebook lacks clarity on retractions. Researchers found inconsistencies in Wedgewood’s data despite its D grade. The October 20 contract, KXVHGCB-26OCT20, settles on VoteHub’s reading, not the actual outcome. This exposes traders to risks from unclear methodology and timing. VoteHub blends polls, fundamentals, and market prices, but its fear and greed index remains ambiguous. A hypothetical payout could persist on fabricated data under the revision exclusion rule. Kalshi and VoteHub should improve transparency by documenting safeguards and archiving settlement inputs.
Source:Show original
Disclaimer: The information on this page may have been obtained from third parties and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of KuCoin. This content is provided for general informational purposes only, without any representation or warranty of any kind, nor shall it be construed as financial or investment advice. KuCoin shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any outcomes resulting from the use of this information.
Investments in digital assets can be risky. Please carefully evaluate the risks of a product and your risk tolerance based on your own financial circumstances. For more information, please refer to our Terms of Use and Risk Disclosure.