New API tier cutoffs and automated promotions coming very soon (probably this week's release) 🙂
I know a lot of people have been waiting on this so just a tentative preview -- 0.25%, 0.5%, 1% for premier, paragon, prime. If you're close to the next tier, we may also be able to grant you the next tier provisionally if it would enable you to ramp up further
New API tier cutoffs and automated promotions coming very soon (probably this week's release) 🙂
I know a lot of people have been waiting on this so just a tentative preview -- 0.25%, 0.5%, 1% for premier, paragon, prime. If you're close to the next tier, we may also be able to grant you the next tier provisionally if it would enable you to ramp up further
Is there a place where we can see like a source of truth for current exchange volume
Is there a place where we can see like a source of truth for current exchange volume
most likely will add an endpoint that lists the thresholds for that month
most likely will add an endpoint that lists the thresholds for that month
could you tell us the thresholds for May
could you tell us the thresholds for May
im just going to assume 17.91B for May as exchange traded volume
So for May if you are marking it as monthly
45M premier
90M paragon
180M prime
im just going to assume 17.91B for May as exchange traded volume
So for May if you are marking it as monthly
45M premier
90M paragon
180M prime
This seems reasonable
This seems reasonable
Sorry to ask, but is there a particular reason the tiers are based on a percentage of total exchange volume rather than absolute numbers (e.g. 30M, 60M, 150M)?
My concern is that a percentage threshold is a moving target. Say someone does 25M in volume and pays tens of thousands in fees: that effort is the same regardless of whether Kalshi's overall volume is high or low.
Under the preview , they could qualify for the premier tier one month, then drop off it the next simply because exchange-wide volume went up, without anything changing on their end. That's might not be a great experience, even if there is a grace period on when you would drop out.
Absolute thresholds would let us plan around a fixed, clear goal rather than one that can shift by several percent in either direction month to month. (And you don't need to add a new api endpoint just for this purpose, that sounds quite overengineered imo)
Sorry to ask, but is there a particular reason the tiers are based on a percentage of total exchange volume rather than absolute numbers (e.g. 30M, 60M, 150M)?
My concern is that a percentage threshold is a moving target. Say someone does 25M in volume and pays tens of thousands in fees: that effort is the same regardless of whether Kalshi's overall volume is high or low.
Under the preview , they could qualify for the premier tier one month, then drop off it the next simply because exchange-wide volume went up, without anything changing on their end. That's might not be a great experience, even if there is a grace period on when you would drop out.
Absolute thresholds would let us plan around a fixed, clear goal rather than one that can shift by several percent in either direction month to month. (And you don't need to add a new api endpoint just for this purpose, that sounds quite overengineered imo)
exchange resources are fixed having it move around a % makes sense since you want to give the top n more resources to provide liquidity. I'm sure if they could they would lower the threshold a threshold is picked so that only a certain % of users need the additional resources from the exchange
I also doubt that they would demote your tier unless you were simply not active
exchange resources are fixed having it move around a % makes sense since you want to give the top n more resources to provide liquidity. I'm sure if they could they would lower the threshold a threshold is picked so that only a certain % of users need the additional resources from the exchange
I also doubt that they would demote your tier unless you were simply not active
I mean if someone pays 30 grand a month of fees alone it should be enough to cover a multiple of what kalshi's needs to pay for infrastructure, even if it is in the big picture of total volume below such a threshold. (Assuming Kalshi can scales horizontal which I do assume, so the cost should should stay flat)
I mean if someone pays 30 grand a month of fees alone it should be enough to cover a multiple of what kalshi's needs to pay for infrastructure, even if it is in the big picture of total volume below such a threshold. (Assuming Kalshi can scales horizontal which I do assume, so the cost should should stay flat)
It's also possible to do millions in maker volume in a month and pay virtually no fees
It's also possible to do millions in maker volume in a month and pay virtually no fees
Sure thats fair. Though would a % of volume compared to absolute number change much about that?
Sure thats fair. Though would a % of volume compared to absolute number change much about that?
its a lot easier if Kalshi's overall volume is high
its a lot easier if Kalshi's overall volume is high
Yeah, so it's what <@351839065919979530> said -- there's a fixed capacity and we want to allocate it as effectively as possible so that people who are providing liquidity can continue to do so and expand.
I do want to be clear that demotions can actually occur if the threshold is not hit (unless there's a manual override, which we'll give on a case by case basis). The flip side of some people being demoted is that we can continuously push the qualifications %s as low as we can.
I do understand that it's probably a pain to be demoted just because you had a slower month. What we may be able to do is make the demotion threshold a bit lower than the promotion one, e.g. upgraded to premier if 0.25% and downgraded if 0.2%.
We understand this is probably not a perfect system, and we'll be open to suggestions to tune it, but we just want to get something in place (and rest assured we're constantly working on increasing the overall throughput we can handle!)
Yeah, so it's what <@351839065919979530> said -- there's a fixed capacity and we want to allocate it as effectively as possible so that people who are providing liquidity can continue to do so and expand.
I do want to be clear that demotions can actually occur if the threshold is not hit (unless there's a manual override, which we'll give on a case by case basis). The flip side of some people being demoted is that we can continuously push the qualifications %s as low as we can.
I do understand that it's probably a pain to be demoted just because you had a slower month. What we may be able to do is make the demotion threshold a bit lower than the promotion one, e.g. upgraded to premier if 0.25% and downgraded if 0.2%.
We understand this is probably not a perfect system, and we'll be open to suggestions to tune it, but we just want to get something in place (and rest assured we're constantly working on increasing the overall throughput we can handle!)
Okay that makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
Okay that makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
One more question: "Premier tier or above have FIX access by default"
If you would drop out would that FIX access stay?
One more question: "Premier tier or above have FIX access by default"
If you would drop out would that FIX access stay?
Hmm we'll need to figure that one out. Will let you know. It's currently setup to be gated by api tier but can potentially make it a one-time milestone that you keep.
Hmm we'll need to figure that one out. Will let you know. It's currently setup to be gated by api tier but can potentially make it a one-time milestone that you keep.
That would be amazing if it could be a one-time milestone!
That would be amazing if it could be a one-time milestone!
I understand the general reasoning around volume / liquidity, but I feel like another thing to consider should be around total fees paid. Because while you are trying to provide most resources to people providing volume / liqudity, for people to have better experience, the end goal is to make the most in fees anyway no? So in my opinion, it would also make sense to offer along the volume % based tiers also a % fees paid tiers to those top accounts that are directly contributing to Kalshi bottom line. As volume and fees are not directly correlated in all cases. Basically skipping the middle man, and going from providing liquidity -> more happy customers -> more fees for kalshi -> more resources , directly to more fees paid to kalshi -> more resources.
Hope this makes sense.
I understand the general reasoning around volume / liquidity, but I feel like another thing to consider should be around total fees paid. Because while you are trying to provide most resources to people providing volume / liqudity, for people to have better experience, the end goal is to make the most in fees anyway no? So in my opinion, it would also make sense to offer along the volume % based tiers also a % fees paid tiers to those top accounts that are directly contributing to Kalshi bottom line. As volume and fees are not directly correlated in all cases. Basically skipping the middle man, and going from providing liquidity -> more happy customers -> more fees for kalshi -> more resources , directly to more fees paid to kalshi -> more resources.
Hope this makes sense.
tbf it doesnt matter who paid the fees if you are the maker the fees are just on the other party
tbf it doesnt matter who paid the fees if you are the maker the fees are just on the other party
yes, but I am talking about the fact that not all volume creates the same amount of fees for kalshi
yes, but I am talking about the fact that not all volume creates the same amount of fees for kalshi