First, he flagged a crucial mix-up in Beni’s original post, explaining that the Artemis chart cited in the complaint measured prediction-market share rather than perpetual contract volume.
He also demystified why Kalshi’s volume numbers look so high, explaining that they use the exact same reporting convention as Polymarket: volume reflects the maximum potential payout, not the upfront cash spent. Because each event contract pays out exactly $1 to the winner, the industry tracks volume by counting the total number of $1 outcomes on the line. For example, if a trader buys 100,000 contracts priced at 30 cents, they spend only $30,000 in cash, but the system records $100,000 in volume because that is the total maximum value of the contracts at maturity. This naturally inflates the headline volume figures, but it represents real user demand, not fake wash trading.
Turning his attention to the perpetual contracts, IcoBeast firmly rejected the idea that Kalshi handpicks a closed club of Self-Clearing Members. Under CFTC regulations, “fair access” is legally mandated, meaning any firm that clears the necessary capital and operational hurdles is legally entitled to join.
“Separately on perps you claimed that “Here SCM means market makers that are selected by Kalshi lmfao”. This isn’t true. Anyone can become a Self-Clearing Member of a CFTC regulated exchange as long as they meet the regulatory requirements. “Fair access” is a reg requirement for us,” IcoBeast.eth said.
Be the first to comment