Kalshi is facing new wash-trading allegations after trader Beni questioned the exchange’s reported Ethereum perpetual futures activity.
Beni pointed to about $538.6 million in 24-hour ETH-PERP trading volume compared with roughly $3.1 million in open interest. He argued that the large difference raised questions about how much of the reported volume represented genuine trading activity.
Beni calculated that the volume was around 174 times the open interest. He also pointed to a Kalshi position leaderboard that, according to screenshots he shared, showed the largest position at about $17,598 at the time.
However, the figures in Beni’s screenshots could not be independently reproduced from Kalshi’s current public pages because trading data changes continuously. As of Sept. 21, there was also no reviewed CFTC enforcement action accusing Kalshi of wash trading in its crypto perpetual markets.
Beni said Kalshi was faking its crypto volume, but his posts represent an allegation and do not establish that wash trading took place. There has been no enforcement finding or independent audit confirming the claim.
Another part of the discussion involved Kalshi’s temporary fee rebate program for perpetual futures.
Kalshi filed an updated program with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Sept. 2. The filing was certified on Sept. 16 and applies to all of Kalshi’s perpetual markets, including crypto and metals contracts. The program is scheduled to continue through Dec. 31 unless it is changed or ended earlier.
For crypto perpetuals, eligible taker fees are reduced to 0.3 basis points, or 0.003%, after applicable rebates. Eligible makers can also receive rebates that result in a net 0.3-basis-point payment.
Beni argued that these incentives could make matched trading very cheap or potentially reduce the combined cost of trading.
However, Kalshi’s filing specifically says transactions connected to suspected self-matching, wash trading, pre-arranged trading or other abusive activity are not eligible for rebates. The company can also remove participants from the program and take disciplinary action when necessary.
This confirms that the rebate program exists, but it does not show that rebates were paid on wash trades.
Kalshi’s crypto lead, IcoBeast, rejected Beni’s claims and said different products were being mixed together.
He argued that the data originally used in the discussion related to prediction-market activity rather than perpetual futures. He also said Kalshi does not have the same crypto rebate program for its prediction markets and that the perpetual-futures incentives are a separate system.
Kalshi’s documentation separates the two products. Prediction-market volume refers to the number of contracts traded, while perpetual futures are separate leveraged products that involve margin and funding payments and do not have a fixed expiration date.
Beni also questioned whether Kalshi’s interface could make prediction-market contract volume look like dollar trading volume. Kalshi’s glossary confirms that prediction-market volume is measured in contracts, although the historical interface shown in Beni’s screenshots could not be independently verified.
Kalshi launched its Ethereum perpetual market in June and has since expanded its perpetual futures offering to Bitcoin and several other cryptocurrencies.
The exchange has previously said that its perpetual futures generated more than $5.5 billion in volume during the first two weeks after launch. That figure came from Kalshi and predates the current dispute.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has also warned exchanges about the risks of wash trading and other forms of artificial activity.
In an August advisory, CFTC staff said properly designed incentive programs can improve liquidity and price discovery, but poorly designed programs can create incentives for wash trading or pre-arranged transactions.
The regulator specifically warned that large volume-based rewards could encourage artificial trading if proper controls are not in place. It also said exchanges should use real-time surveillance and other monitoring tools to identify suspicious activity.
The advisory did not accuse Kalshi of wash trading.
Kalshi said its rebate program includes monitoring of participating members and excludes suspicious transactions from receiving rebates. The company also said the program is available to eligible members on nondiscriminatory terms.
Market-maker rebates are not unique to Kalshi. Other crypto and derivatives platforms, including Hyperliquid and Binance, also publish programs that can provide rebates to qualifying liquidity providers.
Kalshi has also announced a partnership with Nasdaq Market Surveillance covering both event contracts and perpetual futures. According to Kalshi, the system is designed to monitor markets for manipulation, insider trading and other abusive activity.
Beni also raised questions about Kalshi’s relationship with Jump Trading. Bloomberg previously reported that Jump was expected to receive a small equity stake in Kalshi in exchange for providing liquidity.
Jump has also provided liquidity for at least one Kalshi block trade involving a carbon allowance contract.
However, no reviewed regulatory filing or enforcement record identifies Jump as responsible for the ETH-PERP trading volume questioned by Beni. The reported business relationship alone does not establish wash trading.
Beni later said he had received additional information that was not publicly available and planned to delay another post while consulting lawyers. At the time of the report, no regulator filing or independently verified evidence supporting that new claim had been made public.
For now, the wash-trading allegations remain claims rather than established findings. Kalshi has disputed them, while its regulatory filings show that it has a rebate program with rules specifically excluding wash trades and other abusive transactions.
