š° Kalshi is drawn into a āvolume manipulationā controversy. The spark was a market share chart: its encrypted trading volume is labeled at $363.9 million, or 96.7%, while Polymarket is listed at $12.3 million. Former quant practitioner Beni then publicly raised doubts and said he has materials he can provide to the CFTC.
š„ The biggest point of contention is Kalshiās perpetual rebate program. Public filings show that for eligible taker fees, rebates can go as high as 0.3 basis points; makers can net 0.3 basis points. Matchmaking costs can therefore be kept very low. However, the documents also explicitly exclude wash trading, self-trading, and pre-arranged tradesāso the low cost is real; whether volume was āfakedā has not yet reached any regulatory conclusion.
š The ETH perpetual data Beni provided is even more striking: roughly $3.1 million in open interest corresponds to $538.6 million in daily trading volumeāequivalent to about 174 turnovers per day. Yet the largest single position on the positions leaderboard is only around $17.6 thousand. Honestly, itās hard not to think in a certain direction when you see these numbers.
š” Another controversy comes from the prediction market. Traders claim that about 61% of Kalshiās disclosed trading volume comes from multi-hop trades. A user buys a combo bet for $1 that wins the whole set for $14.1 in payouts; the platform may record the trade as $14.1 in volume. Their estimate of actual volume is about $136 million, while the outside figure is $1.91 billion.
š¤ Kalshiās response is: prediction markets and perpetuals are two separate product lines, and counting by contract count is also a common industry method. What can be confirmed now is that the reporting methodology and presentation can indeed make the numbers look inflatedābut āvolume manipulation fraudā is still an accusation, not a conclusion. Do you think 174 turnovers looks more like normal market making, or should the CFTC dig into the trading details and get to the bottom of it?
#Kalshi #é¢ęµåøåŗ #ę°øē»åēŗ¦ #Crypto regulation
š„ The biggest point of contention is Kalshiās perpetual rebate program. Public filings show that for eligible taker fees, rebates can go as high as 0.3 basis points; makers can net 0.3 basis points. Matchmaking costs can therefore be kept very low. However, the documents also explicitly exclude wash trading, self-trading, and pre-arranged tradesāso the low cost is real; whether volume was āfakedā has not yet reached any regulatory conclusion.
š The ETH perpetual data Beni provided is even more striking: roughly $3.1 million in open interest corresponds to $538.6 million in daily trading volumeāequivalent to about 174 turnovers per day. Yet the largest single position on the positions leaderboard is only around $17.6 thousand. Honestly, itās hard not to think in a certain direction when you see these numbers.
š” Another controversy comes from the prediction market. Traders claim that about 61% of Kalshiās disclosed trading volume comes from multi-hop trades. A user buys a combo bet for $1 that wins the whole set for $14.1 in payouts; the platform may record the trade as $14.1 in volume. Their estimate of actual volume is about $136 million, while the outside figure is $1.91 billion.
š¤ Kalshiās response is: prediction markets and perpetuals are two separate product lines, and counting by contract count is also a common industry method. What can be confirmed now is that the reporting methodology and presentation can indeed make the numbers look inflatedābut āvolume manipulation fraudā is still an accusation, not a conclusion. Do you think 174 turnovers looks more like normal market making, or should the CFTC dig into the trading details and get to the bottom of it?
#Kalshi #é¢ęµåøåŗ #ę°øē»åēŗ¦ #Crypto regulation
