KalshiYes.
Yes.
Cy4n参与话题 5消息总数 48
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 48 条，显示第 1-48 条I think this is a good idea.
I think this is a good idea.
Are you sure the target size is met?
Are you sure the target size is met?
Sorry, looks like I didn't get something across that I thought I wrote. I tried to say "types and categories" of markets instead of just "categories" since that word has a specific definition with respect to the exchange beyond its ordinary meaning. To be clear, I meant that in terms of its ordinary meaning. So, not *literally* every market under "weather" would be included. It can be weather daily markets (which is what I was picturing) of which there are significantly less of than the NYC hourlies. For the House, I meant the party winner races for each, so only 435 races * 2 parties per race = 870 markets, much less than the 5000 MoV ones. There also can be certain qualifiers like all markets with a last traded price between 3-97c, excluding certain markets that are listed but won't see much action anyway.
Sorry, looks like I didn't get something across that I thought I wrote. I tried to say "types and categories" of markets instead of just "categories" since that word has a specific definition with respect to the exchange beyond its ordinary meaning. To be clear, I meant that in terms of its ordinary meaning. So, not *literally* every market under "weather" would be included. It can be weather daily markets (which is what I was picturing) of which there are significantly less of than the NYC hourlies. For the House, I meant the party winner races for each, so only 435 races * 2 parties per race = 870 markets, much less than the 5000 MoV ones. There also can be certain qualifiers like all markets with a last traded price between 3-97c, excluding certain markets that are listed but won't see much action anyway.
<@155720202724704258> A lot of niche markets would greatly benefit from liquidity rewards that are currently mostly hoarded by markets that already have plenty of liquidity anyway. If anything, these rewards can simply just be redirected from high volume and liquidity markets (which don't really need them) to low volume and liquidity markets (which actually do). The base idea of liquidity rewards is to incentivize liquidity (and therefore volume) that wouldn't be there otherwise if the rewards weren't in place. Expanding the number of niche markets with rewards (while of course not compromising the reward amounts) will help the spirit of the program vastly. A lot of market types and categories could be improved by having some sort of flat reward amount per week given to all markets. For example, all weather markets can receive a certain amount of rewards. All 2026 Senate and House race markets can receive a certain amount as well. Then, instead of having a garbled mess of random markets with rewards, you can simply show on the rewards page that all weather markets are getting $ABC/day. This also removes the strange phenomenon where, say, a couple random markets in a category will have rewards and a full orderbook while the others are just left out to dry. Right now, new markets and other seemingly random markets get rewards for a few days and then disappear off the face of the Earth. While the rewards do significantly help during that period, the period should be expanded! I think it is much more beneficial for an entire category of market to receive rewards than mere random selection. Instead of makers putting orders on 2 random Senate races for 4 days (that are only visible via API or through tedious scrolling on the rewards page) before the market loses rewards and dies again, makers can stably put up orders on ALL Senate races and can also know that the category will have rewards for a longer time.
<@155720202724704258> A lot of niche markets would greatly benefit from liquidity rewards that are currently mostly hoarded by markets that already have plenty of liquidity anyway. If anything, these rewards can simply just be redirected from high volume and liquidity markets (which don't really need them) to low volume and liquidity markets (which actually do). The base idea of liquidity rewards is to incentivize liquidity (and therefore volume) that wouldn't be there otherwise if the rewards weren't in place. Expanding the number of niche markets with rewards (while of course not compromising the reward amounts) will help the spirit of the program vastly. A lot of market types and categories could be improved by having some sort of flat reward amount per week given to all markets. For example, all weather markets can receive a certain amount of rewards. All 2026 Senate and House race markets can receive a certain amount as well. Then, instead of having a garbled mess of random markets with rewards, you can simply show on the rewards page that all weather markets are getting $ABC/day. This also removes the strange phenomenon where, say, a couple random markets in a category will have rewards and a full orderbook while the others are just left out to dry. Right now, new markets and other seemingly random markets get rewards for a few days and then disappear off the face of the Earth. While the rewards do significantly help during that period, the period should be expanded! I think it is much more beneficial for an entire category of market to receive rewards than mere random selection. Instead of makers putting orders on 2 random Senate races for 4 days (that are only visible via API or through tedious scrolling on the rewards page) before the market loses rewards and dies again, makers can stably put up orders on ALL Senate races and can also know that the category will have rewards for a longer time.
Not trying to be combative or anything — just giving my thoughts. And I do agree that this week has been much better than most of June.
Not trying to be combative or anything — just giving my thoughts. And I do agree that this week has been much better than most of June.
Having some sort of system where every market of type ABC (e.g. every 2026 Senate market) receives a certain daily reward would be great. It's much more predictable and therefore much easier to trade. One of the hardest things trading wise about the current system is that markets seem to randomly get incentives for a few days and then just simply stop.
Having some sort of system where every market of type ABC (e.g. every 2026 Senate market) receives a certain daily reward would be great. It's much more predictable and therefore much easier to trade. One of the hardest things trading wise about the current system is that markets seem to randomly get incentives for a few days and then just simply stop.
From the API, the total incentives currently out right out is around $300K, yes. But a lot of these are for time periods that are much greater than a week. A lot of those also have small individual reward amounts. To be clear, I agree that this week has been better than in the recent past. But I think there's a lot of room to grow still. Namely, the percentage of markets on the exchange that have any kind of reward is still quite small. I just think that some sort of more coordinated effort to expand liquidity on a broader scale would be helpful.
From the API, the total incentives currently out right out is around $300K, yes. But a lot of these are for time periods that are much greater than a week. A lot of those also have small individual reward amounts. To be clear, I agree that this week has been better than in the recent past. But I think there's a lot of room to grow still. Namely, the percentage of markets on the exchange that have any kind of reward is still quite small. I just think that some sort of more coordinated effort to expand liquidity on a broader scale would be helpful.
<@155720202724704258> Are we going to see the liquidity program expand? It's been rather stagnant (at best) and even trending downward in terms of the amount of rewards sometimes. Only a very small portion of the exchange's markets have rewards and I'd like to see that number go up, as would most other people. Also, the regulatory end-date for the program needs to be extended soon in a filing. I'd really like to see the exchange and the liquidity program grow and I think expanding the range of markets with rewards is an important way to do that. Right now, pretty much only new markets and a small select few of non-new markets are getting rewards. The amount of non-new markets getting rewards needs to be significantly boosted as otherwise most markets are just left out to dry with very little liquidity and no volume coming from it because of that. I can't tell you how many times I've opened a niche market wanting to trade, seeing a 44c spread, and then just bowing out. I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of flat amount that covers a much wider range of markets. (e.g. every politics market gets $10/day, every day, by default. This is, of course, a very small amount). Maybe the amount can be a function of volume, current liquidity, and whatever else too. Regardless, I think we need to see the program expand rather significantly.
<@155720202724704258> Are we going to see the liquidity program expand? It's been rather stagnant (at best) and even trending downward in terms of the amount of rewards sometimes. Only a very small portion of the exchange's markets have rewards and I'd like to see that number go up, as would most other people. Also, the regulatory end-date for the program needs to be extended soon in a filing. I'd really like to see the exchange and the liquidity program grow and I think expanding the range of markets with rewards is an important way to do that. Right now, pretty much only new markets and a small select few of non-new markets are getting rewards. The amount of non-new markets getting rewards needs to be significantly boosted as otherwise most markets are just left out to dry with very little liquidity and no volume coming from it because of that. I can't tell you how many times I've opened a niche market wanting to trade, seeing a 44c spread, and then just bowing out. I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of flat amount that covers a much wider range of markets. (e.g. every politics market gets $10/day, every day, by default. This is, of course, a very small amount). Maybe the amount can be a function of volume, current liquidity, and whatever else too. Regardless, I think we need to see the program expand rather significantly.
You are getting 99.97% of the rewards on that side. So, all of it.
You are getting 99.97% of the rewards on that side. So, all of it.
The value of both of them is basically zero.
The value of both of them is basically zero.
Yes, the 50c doesn’t deserve them but neither does the 10c. If it’s possible to jump your quote by 40 CENTS, then your order was meaningless anyway. Like quoting a coin flip at 10c.
Yes, the 50c doesn’t deserve them but neither does the 10c. If it’s possible to jump your quote by 40 CENTS, then your order was meaningless anyway. Like quoting a coin flip at 10c.
For a 50c vs 10c order, yes, the 50c would get all the rewards there.
For a 50c vs 10c order, yes, the 50c would get all the rewards there.
If that 0.01 was 100 shares, then the 100 shares would have gotten a majority of the rewards. But that’s not unreasonable considering that it is quoted 5c higher! Move your spreads up.
If that 0.01 was 100 shares, then the 100 shares would have gotten a majority of the rewards. But that’s not unreasonable considering that it is quoted 5c higher! Move your spreads up.
He still got the *entire* reward.
He still got the *entire* reward.
In luka’s example, the person with 0.01 shares was getting 0.03% of the rewards while he was getting 99.97%
In luka’s example, the person with 0.01 shares was getting 0.03% of the rewards while he was getting 99.97%
Yeah, honestly if you’re quoting such a large spread that someone jumping you and taking all the rewards is even possible, your quotes were at too low of a price anyway.
Yeah, honestly if you’re quoting such a large spread that someone jumping you and taking all the rewards is even possible, your quotes were at too low of a price anyway.
It’s $200 for the whole time period not $200 per day. So, that’s about $9/day and around $0.40/hour. So, $0.20/hour per side.
It’s $200 for the whole time period not $200 per day. So, that’s about $9/day and around $0.40/hour. So, $0.20/hour per side.
Also, any update on getting the incentives on new markets to last for a full week (instead of just going to EOW)?
Also, any update on getting the incentives on new markets to last for a full week (instead of just going to EOW)?
Also, a lot of people have been asking for rewards to expand into more niche markets to provide life to them, and I think this should start happening too.
Also, a lot of people have been asking for rewards to expand into more niche markets to provide life to them, and I think this should start happening too.
<@155720202724704258> Can we get new incentives up?
<@155720202724704258> Can we get new incentives up?
That's what I said. The v2 in the URL is referring to a different concept than the v1 vs v2 endpoints within the newer v2 urls.
That's what I said. The v2 in the URL is referring to a different concept than the v1 vs v2 endpoints within the newer v2 urls.
The naming scheme is not very good. This is actually a v1 endpoint despite "v2" in the URL, which refers to something else.
The naming scheme is not very good. This is actually a v1 endpoint despite "v2" in the URL, which refers to something else.
Yeah. Volume incentives can go under $1. Liquidity incentives cannot.
Yeah. Volume incentives can go under $1. Liquidity incentives cannot.
You've gotten <$1 from a liquidity incentive?
You've gotten <$1 from a liquidity incentive?
Yeah, I think the easiest way is honestly just to test in prod using much smaller amounts.
Yeah, I think the easiest way is honestly just to test in prod using much smaller amounts.
It won't get redistributed to anyone else. It just won't get paid out at all.
It won't get redistributed to anyone else. It just won't get paid out at all.
<@155720202724704258> Can we get rewards up for the week?
<@155720202724704258> Can we get rewards up for the week?
There have been multiple times where the indicator has been briefly taken down with no disruption to the rewards calculation process, so I can't imagine why that would be different now. But who knows.
There have been multiple times where the indicator has been briefly taken down with no disruption to the rewards calculation process, so I can't imagine why that would be different now. But who knows.
Yes, June 5th, or yesterday.
Yes, June 5th, or yesterday.
The rewards accumulation indicator has nothing to do with the actual rewards calculation. I'm not sure why it was removed but its removal has no bearing on the actual payment process of rewards.
The rewards accumulation indicator has nothing to do with the actual rewards calculation. I'm not sure why it was removed but its removal has no bearing on the actual payment process of rewards.
Yes.
Yes.
I cannot see that indicator anymore either as it was removed although I'm not sure why it was. But that shouldn't affect the actual rewards calculations.
I cannot see that indicator anymore either as it was removed although I'm not sure why it was. But that shouldn't affect the actual rewards calculations.
Oh, that's what you meant. Yeah, that indicator was removed for whatever reason. But there don't seem to be any actual issues with the rewards themselves, just an odd removal of a helpful UI feature.
Oh, that's what you meant. Yeah, that indicator was removed for whatever reason. But there don't seem to be any actual issues with the rewards themselves, just an odd removal of a helpful UI feature.
I haven't had any issues with that myself. Not sure what's going on with your account.
I haven't had any issues with that myself. Not sure what's going on with your account.
You can. If a price level has more shares than the target size, the rewards (for that side of the book) are split proportionally to the total shares at that price.
You can. If a price level has more shares than the target size, the rewards (for that side of the book) are split proportionally to the total shares at that price.
<@155720202724704258> It looks like there's a bug where the February amendment to the calculation isn't actually working. Multiple people have said that snapshots are often being counted even when there isn't two-sided liquidity, despite clear language in the most recent program notice that these snapshots are supposed to be excluded from the calculation.
<@155720202724704258> It looks like there's a bug where the February amendment to the calculation isn't actually working. Multiple people have said that snapshots are often being counted even when there isn't two-sided liquidity, despite clear language in the most recent program notice that these snapshots are supposed to be excluded from the calculation.
But I guess it currently is anyway.
But I guess it currently is anyway.
That is not supposed to happen.
That is not supposed to happen.
Yeah, I was just talking about that with someone. That's what's *supposed* to happen. It looks like there's a bug which is allowing those snapshots to score.
Yeah, I was just talking about that with someone. That's what's *supposed* to happen. It looks like there's a bug which is allowing those snapshots to score.
Great!
Great!
Yeah, I agree that more of a point should be made towards putting rewards on more niche and specific markets in order to bolster activity on them.
Yeah, I agree that more of a point should be made towards putting rewards on more niche and specific markets in order to bolster activity on them.
Did these end up getting put up or was it delayed to tomorrow? Not seeing them on my end. I do see a couple of incentives that started at 8:15, which was 2 minutes after your message, but there's only a very small amount of them.
Did these end up getting put up or was it delayed to tomorrow? Not seeing them on my end. I do see a couple of incentives that started at 8:15, which was 2 minutes after your message, but there's only a very small amount of them.
Doesn't look like it. All the new markets (or maybe some other things too) are put up around 2-4 minutes after the hour. Like, if you see something with a start time of 4:02, that's probably one of those. I'm talking about the manually put up markets every week which will all be at the same time (e.g. 10:13) and there will be much more of them compared to a single time of new markets.
Doesn't look like it. All the new markets (or maybe some other things too) are put up around 2-4 minutes after the hour. Like, if you see something with a start time of 4:02, that's probably one of those. I'm talking about the manually put up markets every week which will all be at the same time (e.g. 10:13) and there will be much more of them compared to a single time of new markets.
<@155720202724704258> Can we get incentives up for the week? I think it's only been new markets so far.
<@155720202724704258> Can we get incentives up for the week? I think it's only been new markets so far.
The next morning.
The next morning.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The first is a v1 endpoint and the second is v2. Ignore the url itself. That’s just bad naming.
The first is a v1 endpoint and the second is v2. Ignore the url itself. That’s just bad naming.