Kalshi Faces Wash-Trading Questions Over Reported Crypto Volume
Kalshi is disputing fresh wash-trading claims after a trader’s Sept. 20 thread on X put the exchange’s reported ETH perpetual volume at roughly $538.6 million over 24 hours against approximately $3.1 million in open interest, according to Coinpedia. Trader Beni calculated the ratio at about 174 times and said his screenshots of a Kalshi position leaderboard showed its largest position at $17,598 at the time.
Kalshi’s crypto lead, IcoBeast, rejected the allegation. Crypto.news reported that he said two separate products had been mixed together, that the chart which prompted the dispute reflected prediction-market share rather than perpetual futures, and that Kalshi does not run the cited rebate program for its crypto prediction markets. He also wrote that he knows the activity is real.
Also read: Ethereum Holds Near $2,500 as $2,600 Resistance Caps Recovery
Key facts
- Beni cited roughly $538.6 million in 24-hour ETH-PERP volume against about $3.1 million in open interest, per Crypto.news; Coinpedia put the figures at about $539 million and roughly $3.1 million.
- Kalshi submitted its latest perpetual fee rebate program update to the CFTC on Sept. 2, and the filing was certified on Sept. 16, per Crypto.news.
- For crypto perpetuals, eligible taker fees are rebated to 0.3 basis points, or 0.003%, and eligible makers net a 0.3-basis-point payment, through Dec. 31 unless amended.
- Kalshi told the CFTC that fees from transactions resulting from or under investigation for self-matching, wash trading or pre-arranged trading are excluded from rebate eligibility.
- No CFTC enforcement action reviewed as of Sept. 21 accused Kalshi of wash trading, and the agency’s current Kalshi-related release index contained no public case matching the ETH-PERP claims.
The rebate filing and the wash-trading claim
The fee-rebate program sits at the centre of Beni’s argument. Crypto.news checked the program’s terms against Kalshi’s official regulatory filing and found the document confirms the rates he discussed: eligible takers are rebated to 0.3 basis points, and eligible makers receive a rebate leaving them a net 0.3-basis-point payment, with the program applying to all perpetual markets, including crypto and metals.
Beni pointed to the positive maker rebate and reduced taker charge to argue matched trading could face little or no combined fee cost. Kalshi’s filing addresses that structure, stating payments must be reduced when overlapping incentive programs would produce net-negative combined maker and taker fees on an individual trade. The same document also states suspicious transactions are excluded from rebates, and it says the Chief Regulatory Officer can revoke a participant’s program status and pursue disciplinary proceedings. Crypto.news noted the filing confirms the rebate rates but does not show rebates were paid on wash trades.
Also read: Ethereum Bearish Sentiment Hits Extreme: Why a Rebound Could Be Next
Prediction markets versus perpetuals
Both outlets report the dispute turned on which product the numbers describe. IcoBeast said in a Sept. 20 response on X that the Artemis chart behind the original claim reflected prediction-market volume share, not perps. Kalshi’s trading glossary, cited by Crypto.news, supports the distinction: prediction-market volume is defined as contracts traded during a period, while perpetual futures are separate products involving margin, leverage and funding payments and carry no fixed expiry.
Coinpedia reported that IcoBeast also defended Kalshi’s market-making incentives and denied claims the exchange selects its self-clearing members. Crypto.news reported the same denial and said it reviewed CFTC guidance from Aug. 12 stating that steep volume thresholds can raise wash-trading risk and that market-maker arrangements guaranteeing net profits or covering losses through rebates may encourage artificial strategies. That advisory did not accuse Kalshi of either practice.
Beni separately alleged Kalshi’s interface showed prediction-market contract volume beside a dollar sign, which he argued could make contract counts look like dollars traded. Crypto.news said the glossary confirms the contract-count definition but that the historical interface presentation in his screenshots could not be independently verified, and that the figures could not be reconstructed from current public pages because trading data changes continuously.
Why it matters
The exchange’s ETH perpetual market has operated since June, and Kalshi has expanded to Bitcoin and 17 altcoin perpetual products, so how its volumes and incentives are policed matters to traders using those contracts. The dispute also lands as U.S. derivatives exchanges face pressure to show their incentive programs include surveillance and wash-trade controls. Kalshi has pointed to a multi-year agreement withNasdaq Market Surveillance announced Aug. 10 to cover event contracts and perpetuals.
What to watch
Beni said late in the dispute that he had received new non-public information and was delaying another Kalshi thread for roughly 24 to 48 hours while consulting lawyers, per Crypto.news; no regulator filing or independently verifiable evidence supporting that claim had appeared publicly at the time of writing. Kalshi’s rebate program is scheduled to run through Dec. 31 unless amended or ended sooner.
This article reports allegations and denials, not findings of wrongdoing. It is not financial advice, and crypto markets and related derivatives are volatile and uncertain.
Sources: Coinpedia, Crypto.news
