Kalshi is defending its trading activity after an X user questioned the unusually high volume recorded by the platform’s ether perpetual futures and alleged that some of the activity could be artificial.

The dispute involves Kalshi’s recently launched crypto perpetual contracts, with the main question focusing on the relationship between trading volume and open interest. IcoBeast.eth, a member of Kalshi’s product team, challenged the accusations and said they were based on an incomplete understanding of how the exchange reports activity.

CoinDesk contacted Kalshi for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

$539 Million Volume Raises Questions

The allegations were raised by Beni, a quantitative analyst and co-founder of Stealth Neolab. He examined Kalshi’s ETH-PERP contract and pointed to $539 million in 24-hour trading volume against just $3.1 million in open interest.

That puts the reported volume at roughly 174 times the value of outstanding contracts.

Beni argued that such a large difference can be consistent with wash trading, where repeated transactions increase reported volume without creating a comparable amount of open exposure.

Open interest represents the value of contracts that are still active, while trading volume measures the value of contracts traded during a particular period.

Beni also drew attention to repeated $5,500 transactions. He said trades of that exact size accounted for as much as 58% of Kalshi’s ether perpetual volume on four separate days. He characterized the pattern as evidence of possible volume manipulation.

His analysis also referenced a rebate schedule submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Beni said the arrangement could allow certain Self-Clearing Members to effectively pay no net fee, with a 0.3-basis-point maker rebate offsetting a 0.3-basis-point taker charge.

The underlying concern is that negligible trading costs could make it easier for participants to generate large amounts of activity.

Rebates are incentives exchanges use to encourage liquidity and trading activity, often by returning part of the fees paid by market participants.

Kalshi Challenges the Interpretation

IcoBeast.eth initially responded by arguing that Kalshi’s fee structure would provide little incentive for wash trading. As the allegations attracted more attention, he offered a detailed explanation of the platform’s mechanics.

He first disputed the use of an Artemis chart in Beni’s analysis, saying the data measured prediction-market share rather than volume from perpetual futures.

He then explained why Kalshi’s reported volume can appear unusually large compared with the amount of cash traders put up.

According to IcoBeast.eth, Kalshi follows the same reporting approach as Polymarket for event contracts. Volume is calculated using the maximum potential payout rather than the initial amount paid by traders.

A purchase of 100,000 contracts at 30 cents each, for example, requires $30,000 in upfront spending. Since each contract has a potential $1 payout, the reported volume is $100,000.

This methodology can make headline volume substantially exceed the amount of cash committed, but Kalshi maintains that the figure represents actual contract activity rather than fabricated trades.

IcoBeast.eth also rejected the suggestion that Kalshi chooses a select group of Self-Clearing Members to participate in its perpetual markets.

He said CFTC-regulated exchanges are required to provide fair access, meaning companies that meet the applicable regulatory, capital and operational requirements can become Self-Clearing Members.

He also clarified that Kalshi does not provide rebates on its crypto event contracts.

Rebate programs are common at major trading platforms such as CME Group, Hyperliquid and Binance. However, IcoBeast.eth said Kalshi’s regulatory status as a Designated Contract Market means its incentive programs must be publicly filed with the CFTC.

Early Days for U.S. Crypto Perpetuals

IcoBeast.eth acknowledged that Kalshi’s U.S. perpetual futures offering is still new. He said the company is developing the product in an emerging market while operating under rules that require its incentive arrangements to be disclosed.

He contrasted that framework with offshore perpetual exchanges, arguing that Kalshi’s regulatory obligations make its incentive structure more transparent.

The debate therefore remains focused on the interpretation of Kalshi’s trading data. Beni has highlighted the $539 million daily volume, $3.1 million open interest and repeated $5,500 trades as unusual activity. Kalshi, through IcoBeast.eth, has pointed to its volume methodology, fair-access requirements and public regulatory filings as explanations for the figures.