Bitcoin and Ether Perpetual Volumes on Kalshi Show Repeated Trading Pattern

A small group of recurring trade values represented more than half of the bitcoin and ether perpetual-futures volume examined on Kalshi, according to CoinDesk’s analysis of the exchange’s public trading data.

Ether showed the strongest concentration. Trades priced within $2 of $5,499 generated $7.7 million, equal to 57% of the $13.5 million in ether-perpetual transactions reviewed between Sept. 17 and Sept. 20.

Bitcoin activity was similarly concentrated. Recurring trades around $2,500 and $5,000 together accounted for 54% of the $8.5 million in bitcoin-perpetual transactions included in the sample.

Trading volume is widely used to assess activity and liquidity because higher turnover can indicate that a market has sufficient buyers and sellers to absorb orders without large price changes.

Yet volume alone does not show how many participants are responsible for that activity. When trades repeatedly appear at a limited number of dollar values, determining the source of those transactions can provide additional context about the market’s reported turnover.

That pattern was evident on Kalshi well before the Sept. 17-20 period.

CoinDesk examined 46 one-hour ether samples covering June 19 through Sept. 20. Recurring trade-value clusters appeared in 43 of those samples. The leading trade size represented about 45% of sampled value on average and exceeded half of the value in 15 samples.

The number of contracts in each transaction varied as ether’s market price changed, while the overall dollar amount remained relatively stable. That setup is consistent with automated trading systems that target predetermined dollar values and adjust contract quantities as prices move. Traders often refer to such fixed-value transactions as “clips.”

Ether’s Repeated Dollar Amounts

Kalshi is a U.S. derivatives exchange regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and is best known for its prediction markets. It launched bitcoin perpetual futures in late May, allowing users to trade contracts that track cryptocurrency prices without an expiration date.

The exchange uses relatively small contracts, which were trading around $2.70 apiece on Monday.

CoinDesk reviewed 3,450 ether-perpetual transactions across 23 one-hour periods during Sept. 17-20 using Kalshi’s public API datasets. Of those, 1,406 transactions were within $2 of the $5,499 level.

The recurring $5,499 amount stayed nearly unchanged even as ether moved from approximately $1,700 to $2,500 between June and September. As the price increased, fewer contracts were needed to maintain a similar dollar exposure.

A July cluster contained roughly 2,800 contracts, compared with about 2,200 in September.

The target has shifted at different points since the market launched. Earlier observations showed trading clustered around $4,999, while transactions close to $9,999 represented 72% of sampled value on June 28.

CoinDesk identified another recurring target of $3,999 on Aug. 10, followed by approximately $4,499 on Aug. 18 and $5,499 on Aug. 24.

On June 19, roughly three weeks after Kalshi introduced its crypto perpetual futures, trades near $4,999 accounted for 37% of the ether contract value in the hourly sample analyzed.

Bitcoin Exhibits the Same Dynamic

Bitcoin perpetual trading showed another recurring relationship between two trade sizes.

The two positions adjusted as BTC prices changed, while the larger trade generally remained twice the size of the smaller one. The larger trade was exactly double the smaller in nine of the 22 samples containing both.

For the other 13 samples, the larger position was one contract above twice the smaller, a difference that could result from rounding.

When bitcoin traded around $76,300, the recurring sizes were 327 and 655 contracts. By Monday, they had become 307 and 614.

Ether’s market also showed a large amount of trading compared with the positions still open.

A Monday snapshot recorded approximately 93 million contracts in 24-hour ether-perpetual volume and about 1.5 million contracts of open interest. That resulted in a volume-to-open-interest ratio of 61.

The figure means that about 61 contracts changed hands during the day for every contract that remained open.

Among Kalshi’s 20 perpetual markets with open interest, the ether ratio was the second-highest. The median was roughly eight, while bitcoin posted a ratio of 26.

The elevated turnover does not, by itself, indicate that the trading was improper.

Data Points to Automated Execution

CoinDesk asked Kalshi whether the repeated ether and bitcoin trade sizes were generated by a single participant or several participants. It also asked about possible market-making or incentive agreements and whether the exchange had detected self-matching or common ownership among accounts.

Kalshi had not replied by the time of publication.

The observed behavior resembles algorithmic strategies that maintain a target dollar exposure by changing the number of contracts as the underlying price moves. Similar dynamic position-sizing methods are discussed in quantitative research, including work by Cartea, Jaimungal and Ricci on algorithmic and high-frequency trading.

Automated systems can dynamically adjust orders and position sizes to manage risk and respond to changes in market prices. The concept is also reflected in the Avellaneda-Stoikov model for market making.

The changes in recurring dollar values — moving from approximately $4,999 to $3,999, $4,499 and later $5,499 — could indicate periodic adjustments to the strategy’s notional parameters.

Still, the available public data cannot establish whether the activity came from legitimate algorithmic trading, rebate-related strategies, incentive programs or another source.

Rebate Program Adds to the Debate

Certain participants also gained access to significantly lower trading costs shortly before CoinDesk’s latest sample.

A rebate program filed with the CFTC took effect Sept. 16, reducing fees to 0.003% for eligible firms that settled directly with Kalshi and providing market makers with a rebate of the same amount.

Because the program began one day before the Sept. 17-20 sample, it could have influenced trading economics during that period. However, the recurring $5,499 trades had already appeared almost a month earlier, so the program does not explain their initial emergence.

Pseudonymous trader “Beni” highlighted the recurring trade sizes on X and alleged that Kalshi was artificially boosting its cryptocurrency volume.

Kalshi’s crypto chief, known online as IcoBeast, disputed part of the claim. He said one volume-share chart cited by Beni referred to prediction markets rather than perpetual futures.

He also said Kalshi does not pay rebates on its crypto prediction markets and that incentives offered through its regulated exchange must be publicly disclosed.

Kalshi’s response did not identify the traders behind the repeated ether-perpetual activity or explain why the recurring dollar targets changed over time.