A report analyzing public trading data on the Kalshi exchange published by CoinDesk on September 21 (updated September 22) has drawn significant attention across the crypto market. The research findings indicate that over 50% of the total trading volume in Bitcoin and Ethereum perpetual contracts on the platform was generated by repeating just a few fixed order sizes.

As a derivatives exchange operating under the supervision of the U.S. CFTC, Kalshi was best known for its event prediction markets before expanding into bitcoin perpetual contracts in late May 2026. In an environment where trading volume is widely viewed as a primary indicator for assessing liquidity, the structure and mechanics behind generating that volume are just as critical as the figures themselves.

A Single Order Size Drives 57% of Total Volume

Based on an analysis of 3,450 ETH perp trades across 23 hourly windows (from September 17 to September 20), CoinDesk discovered that 1,406 orders were concentrated within a 2 USD band around the 5,499 USD level, making up 57% of the total sample value (reaching 7.7 million USD out of a total 13.5 million USD). A similar pattern emerged in bitcoin perps, where two price tiers around 2,500 USD and 5,000 USD represented 54% of the 8.5 million USD surveyed during the same period.

This clustering phenomenon has persisted across multiple months. In 43/46 one-hour sample windows examined (between June 19–September 20), ether trades consistently clustered around fixed dollar values. These dominant order tiers contributed an average of 45% of the sample value and represented over half of total value on 15 recorded days.

Notably, even as the price of ETH fluctuated (rising from ~1,700 USD to ~2,500 USD between June and September), the contract size for each order was adjusted accordingly to maintain the exact same dollar value. Concurrently, the target benchmark also shifted over time: starting at 4,999 USD, peaking at 9,999 USD (accounting for 72% of the sample value on June 28), then transitioning to 3,999 USD (from August 10), 4,499 USD (from August 18), and settling at 5,499 USD (from August 24).

Similarly for Bitcoin, two order tiers consistently preserved a nearly two-to-one ratio—a hallmark of an algorithm automatically computing contract numbers to reach an exact target dollar threshold. For instance, when bitcoin stood at ~76,300 USD, the contract counts were 327 and 655, later adjusting to 307 and 614 early in the week.

Abnormally High Volume-to-OI Ratio

Several trading metrics point to an unusually high rate of volume turnover on Kalshi. According to data from Monday’s snapshot, Ether perps recorded 93 million contracts traded within 24 hours, whereas open interest stood at only 1.5 million. The volume-to-open interest ratio reached 61, the second-highest among the 20 perpetual contracts with open interest on the exchange (compared with a median of roughly 8, while bitcoin reached 26).

An anonymous X account named Beni (@beniduboss) shared a snapshot showing 24-hour trading volume of approximately 539 million USD, alongside an open interest of just 3.1 million USD, reflecting a turnover velocity of 174 times. Notably, the largest Ether perp position on the public leaderboard at that time was only around 17,598 USD. Beni claimed to have uncovered evidence of wash trading on Kalshi, pointing out that orders sized at 5,500 USD accounted for 48% to 58% of total ether perp volume between September 16–September 20.

Subsequently, Beni collaborated with The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to broaden the investigation. The WSJ report highlighted that since August, nearly a million orders had been placed, with more than 1/3 of recent ether perp orders centered around the 5,500 USD mark, contributing more than 5 billion USD in volume in less than a month. The CFTC is currently reviewing the data to determine whether to launch a formal inquiry.

While high turnover velocity does not necessarily indicate fraud, it raises an urgent need to clarify the true origin of these trading flows.

What Does Kalshi Say?

Prior to CoinDesk publishing its report, Kalshi had not issued an official response regarding whether the repeating order values stemmed from one or multiple entities, whether this was part of an incentive market-making program, or whether internal controls flag self-matches or accounts under common ownership.

Aiming to address public scrutiny following the allegations, the platform published an explanatory post on its blog on September 22:

  • Source of fixed-size orders: Originated from a single market maker under an agreement paying a fixed monthly fee to maintain spread depth and quote size. This compensation is paid for providing resting liquidity rather than computed based on trading volume.

  • Taker-side interaction: Hundreds of independent taker counterparties consistently and actively filled these resting orders. Benefiting from a speed edge, takers often came out ahead and captured profits, while the market maker bore downside risks during sharp market swings. Kalshi noted that one group of takers earned approximately 98,000 USD in profits.

  • Technical controls and surveillance: The exchange stated that its infrastructure incorporates automated protections to prevent self-matching and actively monitors prearranged transactions. As such, Kalshi asserted that it found “no evidence of fraud or wash trading.”

The WSJ reported that Jump Trading and Wintermute were among the firms executing these rapid-response trades. A Jump Trading representative affirmed that their trading activities were strictly profit-seeking, adhered to self-match prevention rules, and involved no collusion with any other counterparty. For its part, Wintermute declined to comment and has not released an official statement.

Nonetheless, because publicly accessible data does not disclose specific participant identities, all assertions made at the individual account level remain impossible to verify independently.

Fee Schedule Does Not Fully Explain the Timeline

A fee incentive program was filed with the CFTC and formally took effect on September 16. Under this structure, transaction fees dropped to 0.003%, with market makers receiving an equivalent rebate. This effectively reduced net execution costs among self-clearing members to approximately zero. However, the rebate policy explicitly excludes wash trading, self-matching, or prearranged transactions.

The discrepancy lies in the timeline: the 5,499 USD order pattern had already emerged on August 24, roughly a month before the new fee schedule took effect. Earlier, IcoBeast (head of crypto at Kalshi) had debated Beni, arguing that the cited fee schedule applied to prediction markets rather than perpetuals, while emphasizing that the platform offered no rebates on crypto prediction markets. Still, that explanation left unanswered why the benchmark dollar values systematically shifted over time.

High Volume Does Not Tell the Whole Market Story

From a technical standpoint, structuring orders around fixed dollar amounts and scaling contract quantities with price fluctuations is a standard execution practice in quantitative trading. Updating the benchmark dollar values over time reflects periodic adjustments to algorithmic parameters. Yet, public market data cannot currently differentiate between legitimate trading, fee rebate optimization, or synthetic liquidity generation.

An inherent limitation of trading volume as a metric is that it captures total turnover rather than genuine user interest in maintaining open positions. Although Kalshi stated that open interest continues to expand and is largely driven by discretionary traders rather than high-frequency market makers, the ratio of trading volume to open interest remains significantly elevated relative to market norms.

The upcoming challenge lies in how the CFTC interprets and handles this data, as well as whether U.S. derivatives exchanges will provide more granular transaction-level reporting. Similar debates will almost certainly resurface whenever a nascent trading platform posts eye-catching volume numbers.