KalshiIf an incentive program doesn't lead to narrow spreads on otherwise illiquid markets it's not providing kalshi any value
If an incentive program doesn't lead to narrow spreads on otherwise illiquid markets it's not providing kalshi any value
Vera参与话题 1消息总数 23
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 23 条，显示第 1-23 条The purpose of rewards is to get people providing narrower spreads so people will trade on otherwise illiquid market
The purpose of rewards is to get people providing narrower spreads so people will trade on otherwise illiquid market
1. Kalshi makes money on fees 2. Fees are larger per share near the middle range 3. People need to trade for Kalshi to make money on fees, people don't trade on super wide spreads
1. Kalshi makes money on fees 2. Fees are larger per share near the middle range 3. People need to trade for Kalshi to make money on fees, people don't trade on super wide spreads
Do you legitimately think someone putting 10000 shares at 1 cent is providing more value to kalshi then someone putting 50 shares at 50 cents?
Do you legitimately think someone putting 10000 shares at 1 cent is providing more value to kalshi then someone putting 50 shares at 50 cents?
40 cent spread isn't liquidity either
40 cent spread isn't liquidity either
If people are getting rewards from low volumes, that means no one is providing a large volume anywhere close to their price
If people are getting rewards from low volumes, that means no one is providing a large volume anywhere close to their price
If you're going to go to strawmen, then maybe you're benefitting from just putting large volume at massive spreads and you don't want actual tight spreads that force you to take any risk
If you're going to go to strawmen, then maybe you're benefitting from just putting large volume at massive spreads and you don't want actual tight spreads that force you to take any risk
If they aren't at 1000 shares you can just put in a massive volume of shares cheaper than them, get more rewards than them, and have 0 risk compared to them
If they aren't at 1000 shares you can just put in a massive volume of shares cheaper than them, get more rewards than them, and have 0 risk compared to them
You'd need to put in a bid of 1000 shares at 19 cents, 100 doesn't cut it
You'd need to put in a bid of 1000 shares at 19 cents, 100 doesn't cut it
The only way undercutting someone actually works is if you're hitting 1000 shares the lock out any bids at a worse price
The only way undercutting someone actually works is if you're hitting 1000 shares the lock out any bids at a worse price
Why would I put in a bid for higher then them? As I said, at a price where there's no risk, it's safer to just put up more volume than them without increasing the price
Why would I put in a bid for higher then them? As I said, at a price where there's no risk, it's safer to just put up more volume than them without increasing the price
A 40 cent or 60 cent spread is even more meaningless by a large margin
A 40 cent or 60 cent spread is even more meaningless by a large margin
It's much safer to get half the reward with no risk, then try getting the whole reward for a lot of risk
It's much safer to get half the reward with no risk, then try getting the whole reward for a lot of risk
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
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
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
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
And that's still less valuable than having an actual narrow spread
And that's still less valuable than having an actual narrow spread
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
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
The idea isn't that a single person isn't providing all the liquidity and taking up all the risk Ideally you'll want people competing for the rewards, tightening the spread, sharing the risk, and providing enough liquidity together At a 100 share minimum you end up with people hanging back doing large volumes at huge spreads because it's too risky for people to tighten spreads much
The idea isn't that a single person isn't providing all the liquidity and taking up all the risk Ideally you'll want people competing for the rewards, tightening the spread, sharing the risk, and providing enough liquidity together At a 100 share minimum you end up with people hanging back doing large volumes at huge spreads because it's too risky for people to tighten spreads much
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 ticks is a multiplier of 1024 So that "0.01" at 10 ticks above you is the equivalent of only 10.24 shares at your price in this case.
10 ticks is a multiplier of 1024 So that "0.01" at 10 ticks above you is the equivalent of only 10.24 shares at your price in this case.