Key insights:
- The difference of the volume and open interest of ETH-PERP is the main attraction for beni’s attention.
- There are different structures and incentive systems between prediction markets and perpetual futures, says Kalshi.
- Exchanges are required by CFTC rules to monitor incentive programs for abusive trading.
The allegations of wash trading emerged on Kalshi on Sept. After the trader, Beni, questioned the volume of ETH-PERP that was very high, the volume would drop by 20. The volume is $538.6 million and the open interest is about $3.1 million.
In a series of posts, Beni, a former quantitative trader and co-founder of Stealth Neolab, questioned Kalshi’s volume numbers. He said that the imbalance between open interest and turnover needed to be lookd into. Kalshi’s head of crypto, IcoBeast, responded by denying the claims and stating that other products were mixed with it.
Beni Questions Kalshi Trading Figures
Beni posted on September 20 about Kalshis Ethereum perpetual futures contract. In the screenshots Beni showed a 24‑hour trading volume of about $538.6 million. The open interest was near $3.1 million, at that time.
That created a roughly 174-to-one volume-to-open-interest ratio. Beni also cited a Kalshi leaderboard showing its largest position at about $17,598.
He then questioned how Kalshi presents trading activity across its platform. His argument also involved prediction-market contracts and the way the platform displays their reported volume.
However, the screenshots cannot currently be reconstructed from Kalshi’s public pages. Trading figures change continuously, making historical comparisons difficult.
Beni later said he had received information that remained unpublished. He said he would seek advice before releasing further details.
Kalshi Separates Perpetuals From Predictions
IcoBeast disputed Beni’s interpretation and said the debate mixed two separate products. He argued that an Artemis chart cited in the discussion measured prediction-market share rather than perpetual futures activity.
Kalshi’s documentation separates the products. Prediction-market volume counts contracts traded during a period. Perpetual futures instead use margin, leverage and funding payments without fixed expirations.
IcoBeast also said Kalshi does not offer rebates for its crypto prediction markets. He described perpetual-futures incentives as a separate program.
Hey Beni,
Seems like a bunch of wires got crossed here so I just wanted to set the record straight. Your original claim was that Kalshi’s crypto prediction market volume was fake. The chart from Artemis shows prediction market volume share, not perps. We don’t do rebates for… https://t.co/RudV9qzDNn pic.twitter.com/QSIpBu0Cm5
— IcoBeast.eth🦇🔊 (@icobeast) September 20, 2026
A separate estimate added another layer to the dispute. Trader Retardmode reportedly argued that multi-event parlays accounted for about 61% of disclosed volume. Under that calculation, a $1 wager paying $14.10 can count as $14.10 in volume after a full win.
That estimate placed actual activity near $136 million against a reported $1.91 billion. However, Polymarket trader CarOnPolymarket estimated that parlay activity could represent only about 7.1% of the disclosed amount.
Rebate Program Draws Regulatory Attention
Kalshi’s Sept. 2 CFTC filing provides more context around its perpetual-futures incentives. The filing received certification on Sept. 16 and covers all perpetual markets.
For crypto perpetuals, eligible taker fees fall to 0.3 basis points after applicable rebates. Eligible makers also receive rebates that leave a net 0.3-basis-point payment.
Metric Reported figure
ETH-PERP volume About $538.6 million
ETH-PERP open interest About $3.1 million
Volume to open interest About 174 times
Crypto perpetual taker fee 0.3 basis points
Program end date Dec. 31
Importantly, the filing excludes suspected wash trades, self-matching and pre-arranged trades from rebate eligibility. Kalshi also gives its chief regulatory officer authority to revoke program participation.
The filing confirms the incentive structure but does not prove that rebates funded wash trading. No CFTC enforcement action reviewed for this report has accused Kalshi of wash trading in ETH-PERP.
The CFTC issued broader guidance on Aug. 12. The regulator warned that designed incentives can create dangers, around wash trading and pre-arranged transactions. It also called for stronger surveillance and program-specific controls.
Wider Market Questions Follow the Dispute
Kalshi wash trading allegations have emerged as prediction markets begin to offer complex financial products. The company introduced Ethereum futures in June and later added Bitcoin and several altcoin contracts.
Kalshi reported over $5.5 billion in trading volume during the first two weeks. That number came from Bloomberg. Was released before the current dispute began.
At the time IcoBeast looked into Kalshi’s incentive system and compared it with well-known derivatives platforms. Hyperliquid and Binance both have maker rebate programs that reward traders for providing liquidity.
In August Kalshi announced a partnership with Nasdaq Market Surveillance. This agreement applies to event contracts and perpetual futures. Its goal is to detect manipulation and other harmful behavior in the market.
Beni also raised questions about Kalshi’s ties to Jump Trading. Bloomberg previously said that Jump would get an equity stake in exchange for supplying liquidity.. No official filing lists Jump as responsible for the ETH-PERP activity being questioned.
Conclusion
The claims of Kalshi wash trading are still allegations. They have not been proven. The available documents show that Kalshi offers rebates and has committed to monitoring its operations.. Those facts do not prove that the high ETH-PERP trading volume was due to wash trades.
Now the disagreement comes down to how Kalshi’s actions should be interpreted and verified. Beni says he will share information after finishing a legal review. Meanwhile Kalshi continues to defend its approach to managing the market.
For now all the public details confirm is that the trading numbers seemed unusual and that a rebate system exists. Nothing proves wash trading happened or identifies who might be, behind the activity.
