About this app
What is Tundras Fortune?
The sanctions, effective from 28 August 2026 , bar Santos from any direct or indirect trading access on Kalshi.
Earlier this year, fellow prediction market platform Polymarket also ended its paid relationship with Santos amid a Department of Justice investigation over whether he had placed a wager on his appearance at the same State of Union address.
A federal judge sentenced Santos to 87 months in prison last April on felony wire fraud and check fraud charges. After Santos served several months in 2025, US President Donald Trump granted the former congressman clemency, resulting in his immediate release.
How to play Tundras Fortune
Jefferies described market makers as the ecosystem’s “liquidity backbone”. They post executable bids and offers, manage inventory and provide prices when customer activity is heavily weighted to one side.
The analysts estimated that an operator capturing a one-cent spread and managing its exposure successfully could generate net economics of approximately $1.69 on a $100 trade. Returns are not guaranteed: adverse price movements and unresolved inventory can offset or exceed income from spreads, rebates and liquidity incentives.
The operational infrastructure available to these new firms, however, remains underdeveloped. Gonzalez contrasts prediction markets with equities, where trading businesses can use prime brokers, clearinghouses and standardised systems such as FIX.
What is Tundras Fortune?
George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.
