bigrule is that every RFQ has to be for the purpose of making a bonafide trade. not really possible to know your intent, but you could imagine the guy trading 1 out of 1000 rfqs is less likely to be RFQing for the purpose of bonafide transactions every time than the guy trading 100 out of 1000
bigrule is that every RFQ has to be for the purpose of making a bonafide trade. not really possible to know your intent, but you could imagine the guy trading 1 out of 1000 rfqs is less likely to be RFQing for the purpose of bonafide transactions every time than the guy trading 100 out of 1000
I'm only following this debate from afar but I don't understand the people complaining about the RFQ "spamming". The only reason an exchange would want to limit this is infra limits. Otherwise, they aren't "spamming", they are looking for mispricings and taking advantage of them. That's the whole point about market efficiency
I'm only following this debate from afar but I don't understand the people complaining about the RFQ "spamming". The only reason an exchange would want to limit this is infra limits. Otherwise, they aren't "spamming", they are looking for mispricings and taking advantage of them. That's the whole point about market efficiency
I don't understand how any of it is bad behavior. If someone literally never trades and is just trying to DDOS Kalshi, sure that's bad. But if someone is looking for mispricings and those are rare at the rate of about 1/10,000 seems fine to me
I don't understand how any of it is bad behavior. If someone literally never trades and is just trying to DDOS Kalshi, sure that's bad. But if someone is looking for mispricings and those are rare at the rate of about 1/10,000 seems fine to me
The other motive, which would be against the rules, is sending out RFQs to check other market makers quoted prices to then undercut them. I don't think that's what this guy is trying to do here though. If someone is creating an RFQ with the intent to trade, even if mispriced, I don't understand the arguement that that would be against the rules. I agree that the 5k per week is a bit low
The other motive, which would be against the rules, is sending out RFQs to check other market makers quoted prices to then undercut them. I don't think that's what this guy is trying to do here though. If someone is creating an RFQ with the intent to trade, even if mispriced, I don't understand the arguement that that would be against the rules. I agree that the 5k per week is a bit low
there are ways for single people to put strains on large exchanges, even if not maliciously
there are ways for single people to put strains on large exchanges, even if not maliciously
isn't Kalshi quite capable of deciding their own rate limiting needs?
isn't Kalshi quite capable of deciding their own rate limiting needs?
Yes, like I said, Kalshi cares about this because of infra limits. The people whining in here about "spammers" aren't Kalshi though.
Yes, like I said, Kalshi cares about this because of infra limits. The people whining in here about "spammers" aren't Kalshi though.
I’d think this could cause some issues on Kalshi’s end though if they really are trying to cut people who are taking up resources while not leading to fills. One person doing 10,000 RFQs isn’t a big deal. A bunch of quoters responding to those RFQs with reasonable prices but not at a level for the requester who is only looking for mispriced errors can escalate exponentially
I’d think this could cause some issues on Kalshi’s end though if they really are trying to cut people who are taking up resources while not leading to fills. One person doing 10,000 RFQs isn’t a big deal. A bunch of quoters responding to those RFQs with reasonable prices but not at a level for the requester who is only looking for mispriced errors can escalate exponentially
it can be! .. if they think you're not requesting quotes for the purpose of making a bona fide transaction. if its true they banned the bottom percentile of makers and takers, I think they're justified in doing so
it can be! .. if they think you're not requesting quotes for the purpose of making a bona fide transaction. if its true they banned the bottom percentile of makers and takers, I think they're justified in doing so
sorry if that offends the sharp taker
sorry if that offends the sharp taker
I'd hope that whatever the policy ends up being, it is transparent so you know as a user what the exact rules are and why they were applied, especially if it restricts access
I'd hope that whatever the policy ends up being, it is transparent so you know as a user what the exact rules are and why they were applied, especially if it restricts access
You're making a lot of assumptions and still not pointing to the portion of the rulebook you told the guy he was breaking 👍
You're making a lot of assumptions and still not pointing to the portion of the rulebook you told the guy he was breaking 👍
imagine Google perma-banning your Gmail account because somebody got into it and did some spamming. "Sorry, we nuked your account forever"
imagine Google perma-banning your Gmail account because somebody got into it and did some spamming. "Sorry, we nuked your account forever"
the rulebook says "bona fide Transactions", not trades, and the mobile app makes an rfq every time you look at a combo position that you hold. not advocating for a particular side here and i don't use rfqs at all myself
the rulebook says "bona fide Transactions", not trades, and the mobile app makes an rfq every time you look at a combo position that you hold. not advocating for a particular side here and i don't use rfqs at all myself
just continue shadowbanning, no one needs an explanation or they will try to get around it
just continue shadowbanning, no one needs an explanation or they will try to get around it
Yeah to be fair to Kalshi they can’t just say here is exactly what you need to do to not get banned otherwise the real spammers will just find a way around it
Yeah to be fair to Kalshi they can’t just say here is exactly what you need to do to not get banned otherwise the real spammers will just find a way around it
i still havent accused him of anything, i was just asking what his actual fill pct is. and ive literally repeated the rule three times
i still havent accused him of anything, i was just asking what his actual fill pct is. and ive literally repeated the rule three times
they can say "here is what you need to do in order to not put strain on our systems or those of quoters" without taking a moral position on spam, or even trying to define spam
they can say "here is what you need to do in order to not put strain on our systems or those of quoters" without taking a moral position on spam, or even trying to define spam
that doesn't follow. If the only thing preventing spammer success is Kalshi keeping secrets, then spammers will win anyway
that doesn't follow. If the only thing preventing spammer success is Kalshi keeping secrets, then spammers will win anyway
Tbh this is a system design problem. When I build a 20 leg parlay in the app, it is sending out 19 RFQs for every leg I add
Tbh this is a system design problem. When I build a 20 leg parlay in the app, it is sending out 19 RFQs for every leg I add