(regarding minimum order size) 🙂
(regarding minimum order size) 🙂
2026-07-01 · Kalshi · 52 条相关讨论
(regarding minimum order size) 🙂
(regarding minimum order size) 🙂
and then it takes 10 days to actually take effect (timing of all regulatory filings)
and then it takes 10 days to actually take effect (timing of all regulatory filings)
It will be configurable and depend on the incentivized size. I think ~100 is fair most of the time - what do you all think?
It will be configurable and depend on the incentivized size. I think ~100 is fair most of the time - what do you all think?
I see this now — I think 100 is too much personally. I would say 5-10, but just my thoughts. But lots of different types of markets that are incentived, so configurable probably best
I see this now — I think 100 is too much personally. I would say 5-10, but just my thoughts. But lots of different types of markets that are incentived, so configurable probably best
Respectfully 5-10 shares is nothing….
Respectfully 5-10 shares is nothing….
10 contracts is better than 100 imo. Smaller orders are important for price discovery and force everyone to tighten their spreads. Higher minimums mean larger spreads on *new* markets and slower price discovery
10 contracts is better than 100 imo. Smaller orders are important for price discovery and force everyone to tighten their spreads. Higher minimums mean larger spreads on *new* markets and slower price discovery
100 shares would often be risking $50+ for like $0.50 - $2 an hour on most of these markets You'll end up with massive spreads and little engagement with a 100 minimum
100 shares would often be risking $50+ for like $0.50 - $2 an hour on most of these markets You'll end up with massive spreads and little engagement with a 100 minimum
10 shares is not liquidity
10 shares is not liquidity
I disagree, the market will still find fair value
I disagree, the market will still find fair value
You just won’t be rewarded for doing the bare minimum
You just won’t be rewarded for doing the bare minimum
10 shares is completely meaningless and isn’t providing any liquidity. 100 should be the minimum for any rewards
10 shares is completely meaningless and isn’t providing any liquidity. 100 should be the minimum for any rewards
Providing liquidity at a huge spread is even more meaningless, which is how I feel things are more likely to go on the illiquid markets that this change is geared towards They'll need to test both ways and see which provides better results, anything else is just theory crafting behavior without having any hard evidence to back it up
Providing liquidity at a huge spread is even more meaningless, which is how I feel things are more likely to go on the illiquid markets that this change is geared towards They'll need to test both ways and see which provides better results, anything else is just theory crafting behavior without having any hard evidence to back it up
In a market like this you'd want to give the entire reward to the person providing liquidity at 17 cents, when that person is providing even less value than the person at 41 cents
In a market like this you'd want to give the entire reward to the person providing liquidity at 17 cents, when that person is providing even less value than the person at 41 cents
I completely disagree. If someone has 100+ shares up, they’re providing actual liquidity. If there’s a huge spread and you feel you can provide a better price, go for it and get all the rewards. The difference being you’ll actually have to provide real liquidity in that case and not just undercut them and put up 1 share.
I completely disagree. If someone has 100+ shares up, they’re providing actual liquidity. If there’s a huge spread and you feel you can provide a better price, go for it and get all the rewards. The difference being you’ll actually have to provide real liquidity in that case and not just undercut them and put up 1 share.
Then put a bid above them at 18c
Then put a bid above them at 18c
And that's still less valuable than having an actual narrow spread
And that's still less valuable than having an actual narrow spread
You're more likely to have a bunch of people stack massive volumes at low values where there's no actual risk to them
You're more likely to have a bunch of people stack massive volumes at low values where there's no actual risk to them
It'd be easier and less risk to put 1000 shares at 16 cents, because there's no way anyone would take that, and if they did, I'd be making a great deal
It'd be easier and less risk to put 1000 shares at 16 cents, because there's no way anyone would take that, and if they did, I'd be making a great deal
If someone puts bids at 41 cents, then it encourages other people to put bids on the narrow spread as well
If someone puts bids at 41 cents, then it encourages other people to put bids on the narrow spread as well
If someone puts bids at a large spread, then everyone else can grab a share of the rewards by also putting bids on a wide spread
If someone puts bids at a large spread, then everyone else can grab a share of the rewards by also putting bids on a wide spread