Kalshi’s Crypto Volume Questioned After Identical $5,500 Trades Flagged

Kalshi’s new ether perpetual futures market has come under scrutiny after an X user questioned the scale and pattern of trading activity, alleging that the platform’s reported volume may include artificial transactions.

The criticism centers on the substantial difference between Kalshi’s trading volume and open interest. IcoBeast.eth, who works on product development at Kalshi, disputed the accusations and said they overlook important details about how the platform operates and calculates volume.

CoinDesk reached out to Kalshi for a response but had not received one immediately.

$539 Million in Volume vs. $3.1 Million in Open Interest

Beni, a quantitative analyst and co-founder of Stealth Neolab, first raised the issue after examining Kalshi’s ETH-PERP contract.

He said the ether perpetual recorded $539 million in trading volume over 24 hours, compared with only $3.1 million in open interest. Based on those figures, the volume was about 174 times larger than the outstanding open positions.

Beni said an imbalance of that size can resemble the conditions typically associated with wash trading, in which repeated transactions can inflate reported activity without significantly increasing the amount of capital tied up in open positions.

Open interest refers to the total value of contracts that remain outstanding, while volume measures the value of contracts traded over a specific period.

The analyst also highlighted repeated trades worth exactly $5,500. He said these transactions made up as much as 58% of Kalshi’s total ether perpetual volume on four separate days and described the pattern as evidence of potential manipulation.

Beni further cited a rebate schedule filed with the CFTC. He said certain Self-Clearing Members could potentially offset a 0.3-basis-point taker fee with a 0.3-basis-point maker rebate, resulting in no net trading fee.

His argument is that minimal or zero trading costs could make it easier for participants to create large amounts of activity without incurring significant expenses.

Trading rebates are incentives used by exchanges to encourage liquidity and higher activity, often through fee refunds or other payments to market makers.

Kalshi Disputes the Allegations

IcoBeast.eth initially responded that Kalshi’s fee structure should make wash trading unattractive. He later expanded on his comments as the allegations gained traction on social media.

He said Beni’s original post contained an important data mix-up involving an Artemis chart. According to IcoBeast.eth, the chart measured market share for prediction markets rather than trading volume from perpetual contracts.

He also addressed the unusually large volume figures associated with Kalshi’s event contracts.

Kalshi uses the same reporting convention as Polymarket, he said, with volume based on the maximum possible payout rather than the amount traders pay upfront.

Under this approach, a trader who buys 100,000 contracts for 30 cents each would spend $30,000. Because each contract can pay $1 at settlement, however, the reported volume would be $100,000.

That calculation can produce headline volume figures that are much larger than the cash initially committed, but Kalshi argues that it still reflects genuine market participation.

IcoBeast.eth also rejected claims that Kalshi selectively chooses which firms can become Self-Clearing Members.

He pointed to the CFTC’s fair-access requirements, saying any company that satisfies the necessary regulatory, capital and operational conditions can qualify for Self-Clearing Member status.

“Anyone can become a Self-Clearing Member of a CFTC regulated exchange as long as they meet the regulatory requirements,” he said.

He added that Kalshi does not provide rebates for its crypto event prediction contracts.

Although rebate programs are widely used by exchanges such as CME Group, Hyperliquid and Binance, IcoBeast.eth said Kalshi’s status as a Designated Contract Market requires it to publicly disclose its incentive programs through CFTC filings.

That requirement, he argued, gives traders visibility into the incentives offered on the platform.

U.S. Perpetual Market Remains in Early Stages

IcoBeast.eth acknowledged that Kalshi’s U.S. perpetual futures offering is still developing. He said the company is entering relatively new territory while operating within a regulatory framework that requires incentive programs to be disclosed publicly.

He contrasted this with offshore perpetual exchanges, saying Kalshi’s regulatory obligations mean its incentive arrangements are more visible to market participants.

The dispute has left two competing interpretations of Kalshi’s trading data. Beni points to the $539 million in 24-hour volume, $3.1 million in open interest and recurring $5,500 transactions as signs that warrant further examination. Kalshi, meanwhile, attributes the reported figures to its volume methodology and regulated market structure and says its incentive programs are subject to public disclosure.