Kalshi’s bitcoin and ether perpetual markets have recorded an unusual concentration of trading around a handful of recurring dollar amounts, according to CoinDesk’s analysis of the exchange’s public transaction data.
In the ether perpetual market, trades within $2 of $5,499 represented $7.7 million, or 57%, of the $13.5 million in transactions reviewed by CoinDesk between Sept. 17 and Sept. 20. Bitcoin trading showed a similar pattern, with recurring trades of roughly $2,500 and $5,000 making up 54% of the $8.5 million analyzed over the same four-day period.
The concentration matters because volume is commonly used as an indicator of market activity and liquidity. A market with substantial volume can appear to have a broad pool of buyers and sellers, potentially allowing participants to enter or exit positions without significantly affecting prices.
But aggregate volume does not reveal how many independent participants generated the activity. When a large proportion of trading repeatedly occurs at the same dollar values, the source of that activity becomes relevant to understanding what the volume represents.
The pattern was visible well before CoinDesk’s latest four-day sample.
Of 46 hourly ether samples examined between June 19 and Sept. 20, 43 showed trades repeatedly clustering around particular dollar targets. The dominant trade size represented about 45% of the value in those samples on average and exceeded half of the traded value on 15 dates.
The number of contracts changed as ether moved in price, while the overall dollar value of the recurring transactions remained relatively stable. Such behavior is consistent with automated trading systems designed to execute predetermined dollar amounts, sometimes described by traders as “clips.”
Ether Trades Follow Fixed Dollar Targets
Kalshi introduced bitcoin perpetual futures in late May. The contracts track the price of the underlying cryptocurrency without an expiration date.
The exchange divides exposure into small contracts, which were trading at roughly $2.70 each on Monday. CoinDesk examined 3,450 ether-perpetual transactions across 23 one-hour samples during Sept. 17-20 using Kalshi’s public API datasets.
Of those trades, 1,406 fell within $2 of the $5,499 level.
The recurring target stayed almost unchanged even as ether’s price rose. ETH moved from roughly $1,700 to $2,500 between June and September, meaning traders needed to adjust the number of contracts to maintain a similar dollar value.
One July cluster contained around 2,800 contracts, compared with approximately 2,200 contracts in September.
The target itself was not fixed throughout the entire period. Earlier samples showed trading concentrated around $4,999. On June 28, trades near $9,999 represented 72% of the sampled value.
A recurring $3,999 target appeared on Aug. 10, followed by approximately $4,499 on Aug. 18 and $5,499 on Aug. 24.
The pattern was already apparent on June 19, around three weeks after Kalshi launched its crypto perpetual futures. Trades worth almost exactly $4,999 represented 37% of the ether contract value in CoinDesk’s hourly sample that day.
Bitcoin Shows a Similar Structure
Bitcoin perpetuals displayed another recurring relationship between trade sizes.
Two trade sizes generally moved together as BTC’s price changed, with the larger transaction remaining almost exactly twice the smaller one. The larger position was precisely double the smaller in nine of the 22 samples where both appeared.
In the remaining 13 samples, the larger position was one contract above twice the smaller amount, a difference that could be attributed to rounding.
When bitcoin was trading near $76,300, the recurring sizes were 327 and 655 contracts. On Monday, they had shifted to 307 and 614.
The ether market also stood out for the amount of turnover relative to its outstanding positions.
A Monday snapshot showed roughly 93 million ether-perpetual contracts in 24-hour volume against about 1.5 million contracts of open interest. That generated a volume-to-open-interest ratio of 61.
In practical terms, around 61 contracts changed hands during the day for every contract that remained open.
That was the second-highest ratio among Kalshi’s 20 perpetual markets with open interest. The median ratio was about eight. Bitcoin’s ratio stood at 26.
A high turnover ratio does not, on its own, establish that the trading is inappropriate or irregular.
Automated Trading Could Explain the Pattern
CoinDesk asked Kalshi whether one participant or several participants were responsible for the repeated bitcoin and ether trade sizes. It also asked whether the transactions were linked to market-making or incentive arrangements and whether Kalshi had identified self-matching or common ownership between accounts.
The exchange had not responded by the time of publication.
Repeated transactions built around a predetermined dollar value can occur when algorithmic trading systems dynamically adjust contract quantities as prices change. Quantitative trading research, including work by Cartea, Jaimungal and Ricci, examines similar approaches to dynamic position sizing.
Automated strategies can adjust quotes and contract quantities as markets move, allowing traders to manage risk and hedge against adverse price movements. The concept is also reflected in established market-making research such as the Avellaneda-Stoikov model.
The changes in Kalshi’s recurring targets — from around $4,999 to $3,999, $4,499 and eventually $5,499 — could indicate that the notional amounts used by a strategy were periodically modified.
However, public trade and order-book records cannot determine whether the activity was normal algorithmic trading, incentive-driven activity or something else.
Debate Over Kalshi’s Crypto Volume
The trading pattern also drew attention because of changes to trading incentives.
A rebate program filed with the CFTC became effective on Sept. 16, one day before CoinDesk’s four-day sample. The program lowered fees for certain firms that settled directly with Kalshi to 0.003% and provided market makers with a rebate at the same rate.
The timing means the program could have affected trading economics during the Sept. 17-20 period. It does not, however, account for the appearance of the recurring $5,499 trades, which were first observed nearly a month earlier.
Pseudonymous trader “Beni” highlighted the repeated trade sizes on X and alleged that Kalshi was inflating its crypto volume.
Kalshi’s crypto chief, who uses the name IcoBeast, disputed part of Beni’s analysis. He said one of the volume-share charts cited in the criticism referred to prediction markets rather than perpetual futures.
IcoBeast also said Kalshi does not pay rebates on its crypto prediction markets and that incentives offered on its regulated exchange must be publicly disclosed.
Kalshi’s response did not identify the participants behind the recurring ether-perpetual transactions or explain why the dollar targets changed over time.
