秋田预测市场 · Discord 审计

RFQ 做市商批量遭遇 400 错误并被疑误封禁

2026-06-24 · Kalshi · 38 条相关讨论

hakuna 2026-06-23 22:30:12

is there anyone that was getting 400s for rfqs that's no longer getting 400s?

is there anyone that was getting 400s for rfqs that's no longer getting 400s?

wookets 2026-06-23 22:44:11

Still getting 400s here.

Still getting 400s here.

wookets 2026-06-23 22:44:34

Yes, like many others here.

Yes, like many others here.

Timboslice003 2026-06-24 00:12:16

I just posted about our issue in the bug channel for awareness if you guys want to take a look at it or add to it

I just posted about our issue in the bug channel for awareness if you guys want to take a look at it or add to it

Timboslice003 2026-06-24 00:16:09

None of us post RFQs we are responding to them

None of us post RFQs we are responding to them

wookets 2026-06-24 00:17:23

Yeah, only responding to RFQs/Combos, not doing anything that would be construed as spamming. Decent volume as well, 5+ million filled in the last couple weeks.

Yeah, only responding to RFQs/Combos, not doing anything that would be construed as spamming. Decent volume as well, 5+ million filled in the last couple weeks.

zevanz 2026-06-24 01:59:44

Yeah 100%. I don’t feel like my bot was spamming either but I would be happy to change behavior according to any guidelines

Yeah 100%. I don’t feel like my bot was spamming either but I would be happy to change behavior according to any guidelines

lactobacillus 2026-06-24 02:05:14

if these are in fact bans rather than a technical error, kalshi is within their rights to enact them, but should do so transparently > RULE 3.11 REJECTION OF APPLICANT AND LIMITATIONS OF TRADING PRIVILEGES > (a) Notwithstanding Kalshi’s authority granted under any other Rule, Kalshi may, in its sole discretion, deny any Member Application, or suspend, revoke, limit, condition, restrict, or qualify the trading privileges of any Trader) or Authorized Trader of a Member as it deems necessary or appropriate. > (b) Anyone who has had trading privileges limited pursuant to Section (a) of this Rule will be provided, in writing, the reason such action was taken.

if these are in fact bans rather than a technical error, kalshi is within their rights to enact them, but should do so transparently > RULE 3.11 REJECTION OF APPLICANT AND LIMITATIONS OF TRADING PRIVILEGES > (a) Notwithstanding Kalshi’s authority granted under any other Rule, Kalshi may, in its sole discretion, deny any Member Application, or suspend, revoke, limit, condition, restrict, or qualify the trading privileges of any Trader) or Authorized Trader of a Member as it deems necessary or appropriate. > (b) Anyone who has had trading privileges limited pursuant to Section (a) of this Rule will be provided, in writing, the reason such action was taken.

Arbgame 2026-06-24 02:13:41

I'd pay 75c for they're not shadow banning.

I'd pay 75c for they're not shadow banning.

james 2026-06-24 07:30:29

hm, on every POST call seems quite strange, I'll look into it

hm, on every POST call seems quite strange, I'll look into it

iwillnotsaveyou 2026-06-24 07:30:59

Anyone seeing weird fills coming in on RFQ's, despite not currently quoting

Anyone seeing weird fills coming in on RFQ's, despite not currently quoting

zevanz 2026-06-24 07:33:49

There’s been a ton of messages in this channel on the issue. Happy to provide more insight in DMs! It started on 6/19 around 19:14 UTC for a lot of us after no issues before

There’s been a ton of messages in this channel on the issue. Happy to provide more insight in DMs! It started on 6/19 around 19:14 UTC for a lot of us after no issues before

james 2026-06-24 07:37:44

are none getting through at all? or just a small number of them

are none getting through at all? or just a small number of them

Timboslice003 2026-06-24 07:39:07

Every POST returns 400 for invalid parameters but according to the API our parameters look to be correct. I sent some emails to the main support account with a lot of details I’d be happy to share

Every POST returns 400 for invalid parameters but according to the API our parameters look to be correct. I sent some emails to the main support account with a lot of details I’d be happy to share

Timboslice003 2026-06-24 07:39:47

Happened out of nowhere. Quoting was perfectly fine and then all of the sudden only 400s

Happened out of nowhere. Quoting was perfectly fine and then all of the sudden only 400s

zevanz 2026-06-24 07:41:12

Thanks for the response here. Unfortunately I don’t think that is it. None of us had changed anything in our quote payload for days before the issues started. I use three decimal places and I get rejected every time. Just like <@872238471593492520> said it was out of nowhere. I am happy to send example payloads if that would help

Thanks for the response here. Unfortunately I don’t think that is it. None of us had changed anything in our quote payload for days before the issues started. I use three decimal places and I get rejected every time. Just like <@872238471593492520> said it was out of nowhere. I am happy to send example payloads if that would help

wookets 2026-06-24 07:41:26

100% failure rate since Friday afternoon, millions in volume in the previous weeks. 400 invalid parameters.

100% failure rate since Friday afternoon, millions in volume in the previous weeks. 400 invalid parameters.

james 2026-06-24 08:34:42

ok we are working on fixing but might take a bit

ok we are working on fixing but might take a bit

james 2026-06-24 08:37:10

they probably should've been 429s

they probably should've been 429s