Kalshi, a regulated U.S. prediction market, is facing allegations of fake crypto trading volume after unusually high activity on one of its contracts was flagged on social media. The flagged contract, an ether perpetual futures product labeled ETH-PERP, showed $539 million in reported trading volume over a 24-hour period alongside $3.1 million in open interest. That volume represented a figure 174 times larger than the open interest.
Observers pointed specifically to the disparity between reported 24-hour volume and the level of open interest as the basis for the allegation. The 174-to-1 ratio between volume and open interest was presented as unusually high for a perpetual contract market. The figures relate specifically to the ETH-PERP ether perpetual contract on Kalshi. The report on social media raised questions about whether the reported volume reflected actual trading activity.
Those social-media posts focused attention on the reported figures and prompted the allegations of fake trading volume. The matter remains framed around the disparity between reported 24-hour trading volume and open interest on Kalshi’s ETH-PERP contract.
Analyst Beni posted on X alleging wash trading and volume manipulation in Kalshi’s ether perpetual market, using the terms ‘wash trading’ and ‘volume manipulation’ to describe the activity. Beni highlighted a reported 24‑hour trading volume of $539 million against $3.1 million in open interest for the ETH‑PERP contract. He noted that the reported volume was 174 times larger than the open interest. Beni presented these discrepancies as the basis for his allegation.
Beni also pointed to a rebate schedule filed with the CFTC that he said could result in net‑zero fees for Self‑Clearing Members through a 0.3‑basis‑point maker rebate offset by a 0.3‑basis‑point taker fee. He suggested that the fee structure was relevant to the questions about reported trading activity. Beni described the overall pattern as consistent with volume manipulation.
The claims raised focused attention on market reporting and on the specific mechanics cited by Beni. The posts triggered scrutiny from observers on social media.
IcoBeast.eth initially brushed off wash trading concerns, arguing the platform’s fee structure would deter manipulators. That account later provided a breakdown intended to explain why Kalshi’s reported volume appears high, citing a mix‑up involving the Artemis chart. The Artemis chart cited measures prediction‑market share rather than perpetual contract volume. The breakdown presented the chart confusion as a reason the platform’s volume figures were being misinterpreted on social media.
Kalshi uses a reporting convention similar to Polymarket: reported volume reflects the maximum potential payout of contracts rather than the upfront cash spent to enter positions. The reporting convention therefore records volume in a manner distinct from the immediate cash exchanged at trade time. Kalshi defines open interest as the total dollar value of active, outstanding contracts. Kalshi defines trading volume as the total dollar value of contracts that changed hands over a period.
Commentators and Kalshi‑related accounts relied on the platform’s reporting conventions and a cited charting mix‑up in their responses. The exchanges centered on differences in reporting methodology and chart interpretation.
The dispute drew public scrutiny to Kalshi’s reported trading volumes, prompting observers to question whether the figures reflected market mechanics or anomalous activity.
Commentators and Kalshi-linked accounts advanced technical explanations — including differences in reporting conventions and chart interpretation offered by platform-associated accounts — and CoinDesk reached out to Kalshi for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
