Kalshi disputes fake volume allegations over crypto perpetuals

Traders Union
All News
Crypto
Kalshi crypto volume dispute

Highlights

Quantitative analyst Beni alleges Kalshi's ETH-PERP contract reported $539 million in 24-hour volume vs. $3.1 million open interest, resembling potential wash trading.
Beni highlights repeated $5,500 trade sizes comprising up to 58% of ether perpetual volume and claims Kalshi's fee structure could yield net zero fees, possibly encouraging artificial trades.
Kalshi's crypto lead, IcoBeast.eth, refutes wash trading claims by clarifying volume metrics, denying selective access, and emphasizing CFTC-mandated incentive program transparency.

Trading pattern dispute and fee structure questions

As reported by CoinDesk, the controversy intensifies after quantitative analyst Beni, co-founder of Stealth Neolab, highlights a gap between Kalshi's reported ether perpetual trading volume and its open interest. He says the ETH-PERP contract shows $539 million in 24-hour volume against $3.1 million in open interest, a ratio that he argues resembles wash trading, where buying and selling activity inflates turnover without building meaningful positions.

Beni also points to repeated $5,500 trade sizes that he says make up as much as 58% of Kalshi's ether perpetual volume across four separate days. He argues that a fee schedule filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, could leave certain self-clearing members paying a net zero fee through a 0.3-basis-point maker rebate offset by a 0.3-basis-point taker fee, potentially encouraging artificial trading activity.

Kalshi's crypto lead, IcoBeast.eth, initially rejects the wash trading claims on X, arguing that the platform's fee structure is designed to deter manipulation rather than reward it. CoinDesk says it reaches out to Kalshi for further comment but does not receive an immediate response.

Kalshi cites reporting conventions and regulatory transparency

IcoBeast.eth later posts a fuller response, saying the criticism confuses different market metrics and misunderstands how volume is reported on the platform. He says the Artemis chart referenced in the complaint tracks prediction market share rather than perpetual contract volume, and adds that Kalshi uses the same convention as Polymarket, where volume reflects maximum potential payout instead of upfront cash spent.

He also rejects the suggestion that Kalshi limits access to a select group of self-clearing members, saying CFTC fair-access rules require eligible firms that meet capital and operational standards to be allowed in. He adds that Kalshi does not offer rebates on its crypto event prediction contracts.

Kalshi argues that its status as a regulated Designated Contract Market gives it a transparency advantage over offshore venues because incentive programs must be filed publicly with the CFTC. While acknowledging that its U.S. perpetuals business is still at an early stage, the company says those disclosure requirements mean its trading incentives are visible to the market rather than negotiated privately.

Our earlier coverage of U.S. crypto regulation explained how the Senate’s failure to advance the Clarity Act left the industry without long-term legal certainty, even as regulators moved to provide near-term operating room. It noted that the SEC and CFTC issued time-limited guidance and relief that can help companies keep operating, but remains reversible and therefore keeps investment and expansion risk in focus.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.