Kalshi's Crypto Perpetual Futures Draw Scrutiny After Repetitive ETHPERP Trades

Kalshi's newly launched crypto perpetual futures are under the microscope after traders flagged unusual activity in its ETHPERP contract, raising questions about whether the platform's reported volume reflects genuine trading. The debate was sparked by observations of repeated trades in identical $5,500 sizes. One critic said Kalshi posted roughly $539 million in 24-hour ETH perpetual volume against about $3.1 million in open interest—a volume-to-open-interest ratio of about 174x. The same critic alleged the $5,500 pattern may have represented as much as 58% of ETHPERP volume over a four-day stretch, suggesting a small set of repetitive transactions could be disproportionately driving headline figures. Concerns also extended to Kalshi's fee and membership setup. The critic argued certain self-clearing members could face meaningfully lower effective trading costs, potentially making repeated activity inexpensive. Kalshi pushed back, saying parts of the critique conflated prediction-market reporting with perpetual futures activity. The company also disputed suggestions that self-clearing access is restricted to select, handpicked market makers, stating that participation is governed by regulated access requirements for firms that meet the standards. Kalshi said its incentive programs are disclosed through public regulatory filings and that fee structures alone do not demonstrate manipulation. It added that it does not offer rebates on crypto event contracts, while noting that rebates are common across major derivatives venues. The episode comes as Kalshi broadens beyond prediction markets and ramps up its U.S. crypto perpetual futures business—a product area still maturing within regulated U.S. markets. As venues compete for liquidity and institutional participation, the integrity and comparability of reported volume has become a focal point, especially when market structure and reporting conventions differ across platforms. For traders and observers, the central question remains whether the repetitive patterns reflect ordinary liquidity behavior or activity that warrants deeper regulatory scrutiny.