Kalshi’s bitcoin and ether perpetual-futures markets are showing a striking concentration around a small number of recurring trade values, according to CoinDesk’s analysis of the exchange’s public transaction records.

For ether perpetuals, trades within $2 of $5,499 accounted for $7.7 million, or 57%, of the $13.5 million in transactions reviewed by CoinDesk from Sept. 17 through Sept. 20. Bitcoin showed a similar pattern, with recurring trades near $2,500 and $5,000 making up 54% of the $8.5 million sample.

Volume is a key measure traders use to gauge market activity and liquidity. Greater volume can indicate that a market has enough participation for buyers and sellers to transact without causing significant price movements.

But volume figures do not show how many individual participants are behind the transactions. If much of a market’s activity repeatedly comes from the same trade sizes, identifying the source of those transactions becomes important when interpreting the market’s reported turnover.

The pattern observed on Kalshi extends beyond the four-day period.

CoinDesk reviewed 46 hourly ether samples between June 19 and Sept. 20 and found recurring clusters around specific dollar amounts in 43 of them. The dominant trade size represented about 45% of the value across those samples on average and exceeded 50% on 15 dates.

As ETH prices changed, the number of contracts used in the trades also changed, while the dollar value stayed relatively stable. That behavior is consistent with automated systems designed to execute trades around predetermined notional amounts, which traders sometimes call “clips.”

Ether Trades Track Changing Dollar Targets

Kalshi, a U.S. derivatives exchange regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is primarily known for its prediction markets. The company launched bitcoin perpetual futures in late May, offering contracts that follow the underlying asset without an expiration date.

The exchange breaks exposure into small contracts that were trading around $2.70 each on Monday.

CoinDesk examined 3,450 ether-perpetual trades across 23 one-hour samples during Sept. 17-20 using Kalshi’s public API data. Among them, 1,406 transactions fell within $2 of the $5,499 target.

The target remained nearly constant even as ether moved from about $1,700 to $2,500 between June and September. Consequently, the number of contracts needed to reach the target declined.

A July cluster involved roughly 2,800 contracts, compared with about 2,200 contracts in September.

The recurring amount has also changed over the life of the market. Earlier samples centered around $4,999, while trades near $9,999 represented 72% of sampled value on June 28.

The analysis identified a recurring $3,999 target on Aug. 10, followed by $4,499 on Aug. 18 and $5,499 on Aug. 24.

On June 19, about three weeks after Kalshi introduced its crypto perpetuals, trades close to $4,999 represented 37% of the ether contract value in the hourly sample.

Bitcoin Follows a Similar Pattern

Bitcoin perpetuals displayed a related structure involving two recurring trade sizes.

As the price of bitcoin changed, both sizes adjusted while maintaining an almost 2-to-1 relationship. In nine of 22 samples containing both sizes, the larger trade was exactly twice the smaller one.

In the other 13 samples, the larger position was one contract above twice the smaller position, a difference that is consistent with rounding.

At a bitcoin price near $76,300, the two recurring sizes were 327 and 655 contracts. By Monday, they had shifted to 307 and 614.

Ether perpetuals also showed unusually high turnover relative to open interest.

A Monday snapshot recorded about 93 million contracts in 24-hour ether-perpetual volume against approximately 1.5 million contracts of open interest. That produced a volume-to-open-interest ratio of 61.

In other words, around 61 contracts changed hands for every contract that remained open.

The ratio was the second-highest among Kalshi’s 20 perpetual markets with open interest. The median was approximately eight. Bitcoin’s ratio stood at 26.

High turnover alone does not establish that the activity was improper.

Algorithmic Trading Is One Possible Explanation

CoinDesk asked Kalshi whether the recurring bitcoin and ether trades were generated by one participant or multiple participants. It also asked whether market-making or incentive arrangements were involved and whether the exchange had identified self-matching or common ownership between accounts.

Kalshi had not responded by press time.

The fixed-dollar pattern is consistent with algorithmic strategies that adjust contract quantities as prices move. Quantitative research, including work by Cartea, Jaimungal and Ricci, has examined dynamic position-sizing approaches in algorithmic and high-frequency trading.

Such systems can change their quotes and contract sizes as market conditions shift, allowing traders to manage risk and adjust their exposure. The broader approach is also reflected in the Avellaneda-Stoikov model.

The sequence of recurring targets — roughly $4,999, $3,999, $4,499 and $5,499 — suggests that the strategy’s notional parameters may have been modified over time.

However, public order-book and transaction records cannot determine whether the observed activity represented routine algorithmic execution, incentive-driven trading, rebate strategies or another type of activity.

Trading Incentives Come Under Scrutiny

A new rebate arrangement also changed trading economics for certain participants shortly before the latest CoinDesk sample.

A program filed with the CFTC took effect Sept. 16. It reduced fees to 0.003% for certain firms that settled transactions directly with Kalshi and offered market makers a rebate at the same rate.

The program began one day before CoinDesk’s Sept. 17-20 sample and nearly a month after the $5,499 trade pattern first emerged. It therefore does not explain the origin of the recurring trade size, although it could have influenced activity during the later period.

Pseudonymous trader “Beni” highlighted the repeated trade sizes on X and alleged that Kalshi was inflating its cryptocurrency volume.

Kalshi’s crypto chief, who uses the name IcoBeast, challenged part of that criticism, saying a volume-share chart cited by Beni concerned prediction markets rather than perpetual futures.

He also said Kalshi does not pay rebates on its crypto prediction markets and that incentives offered through its regulated exchange are required to be publicly disclosed.

The exchange’s response did not identify the participants behind the recurring ether-perpetual trades or explain why the fixed dollar targets changed over time.