Kalshi early employees: Whoever controls the traffic controls the market
Author: Adhi Rajaprabhakaran
Compiled by: Jiahua, ChainCatcher
On the evening of February 12, in an exchange that usually reacts mildly to sports events, three NBA games suddenly ignited trading: the Dallas Mavericks against the Los Angeles Lakers, the Milwaukee Bucks against the Oklahoma City Thunder, and the Portland Trail Blazers against the Utah Jazz. During these three games, they generated over 13 million contracts in trading volume. ForecastEx is a prediction market operated by Interactive Brokers and regulated by the CFTC. It is a licensed real exchange, but prior to that evening, it had never seen any substantial NBA trading volume.
I don't believe ForecastEx created any miraculous customer acquisition overnight. It did not improve its product, initiate marketing campaigns, or deepen its order book with more liquidity. What happened was actually quite simple: Robinhood directed its massive order flow to another exchange, specifically for that night consisting of three NBA games.
Currently, Robinhood is the dominant retail distributor of prediction market contracts. When users open the Robinhood app, click on an NBA game, and place a bet, the trade is allocated to an exchange regulated by the CFTC for execution. For most of the history of Robinhood's prediction market, this exchange has been Kalshi. But users do not know this, and they do not care. Regardless of which exchange is in the background, the interface is exactly the same: the same app, the same buttons, the same odds. The exchange has become an invisible infrastructure.
A Sudden Migration of 35% Trading Volume
Each bar chart represents a day's NBA trading volume, stacked by exchange. Blue represents Kalshi, and red represents ForecastEx. Except for February 12, every day is all blue, and on that day, 35% of the trading volume suddenly appeared on ForecastEx. Then everything returned to an all-blue state, as if nothing had happened.
The red portion on February 12 represents those three games: Mavericks vs. Lakers, Bucks vs. Thunder, Blazers vs. Jazz. Together, they generated 13.4 million contracts on ForecastEx. Regardless of which exchange handled the trades, the user experience on Robinhood is the same: the same app, the same buttons, the same odds. Users cannot distinguish the difference at all. Because for them, it truly makes no difference.
This is why the number 35% is so important, as it is a relatively pure indicator of Robinhood's market share in NBA spread trading volume between these two exchanges. ForecastEx essentially has no naturally accumulated sports users, so it is reasonable to assume that every contract on ForecastEx that night came from Robinhood's orders.
Moreover, since Robinhood's interface is the same in any case, these users placed bets at the same frequency as they would on Kalshi. There is reason to infer that about one-third of Kalshi's NBA spread trading volume in February came from Robinhood.
Robinhood controls where the trading volume goes, and it can flip this switch overnight.
A Similar Story in the Weather Market
The order flow of the NBA was brief and dramatic, constituting an extremely clear and compelling natural experiment for analysis. However, the rise of the weather market on ForecastEx tells a similar story on a different scale.
Both ForecastEx and Kalshi offer daily high-temperature contracts: binary options on whether the high temperature in a given city will exceed a specified threshold that day. The two markets are the same product, containing the same cities and the same dates. The only real difference is the exchange that matches the trades.
Before November 18, 2025, trading activity in ForecastEx's weather market was zero. Then, trading volume exploded overnight, with no spontaneous growth transition period, no gradual adoption curve. This step function pattern is completely consistent with the NBA. To measure the overlap, I matched markets on ForecastEx and Kalshi with the same "city-date" pairs, excluding cities that only existed on one exchange. This resulted in 454 matched "city-date" data points.
By the way, this chart provides an interesting case illustrating that platform competition is a net positive for overall industry trading volume. Robinhood opened the weather market faucet, overall increasing the activity of both exchanges, likely due to cross-exchange arbitrage. Market makers participating in such activities effectively distributed liquidity across the entire ecosystem.
For the first five weeks, there was only Kalshi, which serves as the baseline. Then ForecastEx appeared and immediately captured 60% of the total daily temperature market trading volume. It peaked at 72% in late November and has since maintained between 53% and 67%.
The key detail is that when ForecastEx appeared, Kalshi's weather trading volume did not collapse. The blue bars remained roughly stable. Therefore, my interpretation is that ForecastEx's trading volume is layered on top of Kalshi's existing flow. It is likely that Robinhood first opened the weather market and from the start directed its flow to ForecastEx, while its users remained unaware.
This distinction is important. In the January NBA case, Robinhood briefly shifted trading volume that would have gone to Kalshi. In the weather market, however, Robinhood seems to have added ForecastEx as a parallel destination while keeping Kalshi's original flow intact. Both cases demonstrate the same structural point: Robinhood decides where the trading volume goes. Exchanges can only passively receive the orders that Robinhood chooses to send.
The Absolute Amplification of Distribution Channels on Product Innovation
The data from the NBA and weather markets indicate that Robinhood can direct flow. The parlay (which refers to binding two or more independent bets together to form a single bet. A player can only win the prize if all bound outcomes are predicted correctly; if one is wrong, the entire bet loses. Due to the increased difficulty, the odds and returns are usually very high.) indicates that it can scale the already growing demand.
Kalshi launched multi-variable event contracts (i.e., "combinations" or "parlays") in September 2025, coinciding with the start of the NFL season. The product immediately gained attention: weekly trading volume grew from nearly zero in September to about 45 million contracts by early December. This growth was self-driven and directly pointed to Kalshi's platform. Kalshi built the product, submitted for CFTC approval, and injected initial liquidity. The market responded positively.
Then, Robinhood intervened.
On December 17, Robinhood announced it would launch preset parlays and player prop betting in its app. Within just a few weeks, weekly trading volume exploded, jumping from the range of 45 million to 60 million to nearly 100 million, and then reaching 300 million per week by late January. The shaded area on the right marks the period after the Super Bowl when NFL parlays disappeared, leaving the product solely supported by the NBA. Even without football, trading volume remained around 260 million to 290 million per week.
Kalshi did the hard work of creating a new product category. Robinhood's distribution channel elevated it to a completely different scale. Both contributions are real. The question is, which one has greater structural leverage.
Not Just Kalshi
Kalshi has achieved tremendous growth over the past year, increasing from about 7 million contracts per day at the end of 2024 to over 100 million by the end of 2025. This is not entirely due to Robinhood. Kalshi has built real direct demand: new product categories, an expanding native user base, API traders, and institutional participation. A year ago, it was widely believed that Robinhood accounted for the vast majority of Kalshi's trading volume. Today, NBA data indicates that Robinhood accounts for about 35% of spread trading volume. This de-risked business execution capability is indeed admirable.
However, Kalshi is not the only exchange that has built its growth story on distribution channels.
Nadex, as a CFTC-regulated exchange operated by Crypto.com Derivatives, tells a remarkably similar story. Before Underdog integrated with Crypto.com in September 2025, Nadex's trading volume was unremarkable. After Underdog intervened and began directing its users' sports betting flow to the exchange, weekly trading volume exploded by orders of magnitude. The same pattern, different names. Underdog to Nadex is like Robinhood to Kalshi: the distribution layer that turned a quiet exchange into a busy hub.
Most astonishingly, both of these distribution giants have now taken action and fully owned their own exchanges. Robinhood acquired its own CFTC-regulated exchange, and Underdog did the same last week. Two companies, on parallel tracks, independently reached the same conclusion.
This is no coincidence. It is game theory. If you are a distributor directing millions of trades to a third-party exchange, you have to share profits on every contract with an infrastructure that your users cannot distinguish from a white-label API. You are also handing over data, trading volume, and regulatory records to potential competitors, which are the very elements that make their exchanges valuable. When you are large enough, the rational move is to internalize that infrastructure. Exchanges go from being someone else's profit center to your cost center.
The data from the weather and NBA explain why it is so difficult to defend against this dynamic from the exchange's perspective. Even accounting for only 35% of the trading volume, Robinhood can add a parallel exchange to the weather market overnight and immediately direct most of the new flow to it. It can direct three NBA games to another exchange on a Tuesday, generating the same trading volume as anywhere else. Users remain oblivious. They do not choose the exchange. They choose Robinhood or Underdog.
I Was Wrong
Last year, when rumors circulated that Robinhood was considering acquiring its own CFTC-regulated exchange, I publicly stated that it could not happen.
I was wrong with such confidence for two reasons.
First, from my experience at Kalshi, I learned firsthand how extremely difficult it is to establish and operate a regulated derivatives exchange: compliance infrastructure, monitoring systems, CFTC reporting, and so on. Robinhood earned massive revenue from the prediction market while only doing about 1% of the work. The exchanges did the heavy lifting, while Robinhood collected distribution fees, making it one of the most perfect partnerships in fintech over the years! Why break such a good situation?
Second, I applied traditional thinking from the past fifty years of derivatives market structure. Brokers do not acquire exchanges. In the world I am familiar with, the entire significance of an exchange lies in its irreplaceable trading pipeline. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is a $90 billion company with net profit margins second only to Visa and Mastercard, precisely because "liquidity depth" is its impenetrable moat.
An institutional trader needing to mobilize a $50 million Brent crude position would be extremely concerned about order book depth, slippage, and counterparty concentration. This depth is very difficult to establish and nearly impossible to replicate, especially in a derivatives market where contracts cannot be swapped across exchanges. In that world, exchanges earned their structural position through their own strength. Brokers are commodities that can be replaced at any time.
The prediction market disrupted this. On Robinhood, the average sports bet is just a regular user clicking a button to bet $10 on the Lakers. That user does not care about order book depth. Heck, they don’t even know what an order book is. When the trade size is very small and the users are not professional, liquidity depth is no longer a moat. Robinhood changed the underlying pipeline on a Tuesday night, but the same trading volume still flowed out the other end.
When the trade size is very small and the users are not professional, liquidity depth is no longer a moat.
I was wrong because I was still navigating with an old map. The structural leverage of the prediction market is not found where the past fifty years of derivatives history has pointed. It is firmly in the hands of those who ultimately own the users.
In fact, I have already written a frankly unflattering article about how ForecastEx messed up sports events. This may have resonated... and there was a very small amount of activity on ForecastEx on February 5 that I cannot explain. This could be Robinhood's early testing. It is also possible that Robinhood is distributing flow among multiple exchanges, but external analysts have no way of knowing. I think this example is still up for debate because Kalshi's RFQ (request for quote) system and large team of market makers are indeed difficult to replicate. There is an extremely deep technological moat there. Furthermore, 'how important liquidity is in prediction markets' is still inconclusive. This makes me wonder: under the evolution of game theory, are we heading towards a homogeneous competitive endgame—where all exchanges fall into a quagmire of mutual imitation, racing to launch every market available on the market?
You may also like
ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately
On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.
Morning Report | OpenAI has submitted an S-1 registration statement draft to the U.S. SEC; Morpho completes $175 million financing
Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market
Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle
Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."
$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage
Japan’s Three Megabanks Plan Joint Stablecoin Issuance in Fiscal 2026
MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho reportedly plan to jointly issue fiat-pegged stablecoins in fiscal 2026, signaling Japan’s growing push into bank-led digital payment infrastructure.
Humanity Discloses H Token Dual-Chain Attack Details, With Losses on Ethereum and BSC Exceeding $36 Million
Humanity said the H token attack across Ethereum and BSC caused more than $36 million in losses after leaked ProxyAdmin keys enabled malicious contract upgrades and token minting.
White House Discusses CLARITY Act With Law Enforcement Ahead of Senate Vote
The White House discussed the CLARITY Act with law enforcement ahead of a Senate vote, focusing on illicit finance risks and developer protections.
Bitcoin Trading Guide 2026: Strategies for Experienced Traders
What Is XAUT and PAXG? Why Tokenized Gold Is Booming in 2026
Will the SpaceX IPO Hurt Bitcoin? Here's What Traders Are Watching
Foreign selling in the South Korean stock market accelerates, with cumulative net sales reportedly reaching $75 billion this year
On June 9, The Kobeissi Letter, citing Goldman Sachs data, reported that global investors are selling South Korean stocks at an unusually rapid pace. In the latest trading session, foreign investors sold about $801 million worth of Kospi constituent stocks again; total foreign outflows last week reached about $10 billion, and the market has been in net foreign selling on nearly every trading day over the past month. According to the data cited in the report, foreign investors have sold about $75 billion worth of South Korean stocks so far this year. Meanwhile, South Korean retail and institutional investors together recorded roughly $69 billion in net buying over the same period, suggesting that the market’s main buying support has come from domestic capital rather than returning overseas funds. The information currently disclosed still mainly comes from The Kobeissi Letter’s retelling and Goldman Sachs data summaries, while public details on the statistical period and the specific definition of “selling” remain relatively limited.
Fortune Warns of Strategy’s Financing Structure Risks as Bitcoin Premium Narrows
Fortune warned that Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model faces growing financing risks as MSTR’s net asset premium narrows and preferred stock dividend pressure increases.
Ferrari Challenge Le Mans: Carl Moon to Dominate in WEEX Livery
Sahara AI Responds to SAHARA’s Sharp Drop: No Contract or Product Security Issues Found, Internal Investigation Underway
Sahara AI responded to SAHARA’s 60% price drop, saying no token contract or product security issues have been found and an internal investigation is underway.
WEEX Deposit/Withdrawal Dynamic Island: Your Asset Status, Always in Sight
Scaling Crypto Derivatives: The Digital Asset Infrastructure Behind High-Volume Trading
In the fast-moving digital asset ecosystem, derivatives platforms face an extreme architectural test. High-leverage futures markets demand more than just standard security—they require absolute operational precision, zero-latency matching engines, and ironclad structural scalability, all while navigating intense market volatility.
As global platforms scale to meet these demands, the industry is shifting away from rigid, monolithic setups toward a more agile, "decoupled" infrastructure philosophy.
The Blueprint for High-Volume Copy TradingFor elite global exchanges like WEEX (founded in 2018), this architectural choice becomes critical when scaling high-volume retail features like social copy trading. When thousands of users automatically mirror the real-time strategies of elite traders simultaneously, it triggers sudden, monumental spikes in concurrent transactional volume.
To prevent execution latency or settlement bottlenecks during these peak volatility events, a platform's primary engine must remain entirely dedicated to risk management, copy-trade synchronization, and order matching.
The Architectural Rule: New-generation platforms must separate front-end user execution engines from heavy backend infrastructural overhead to eliminate operational friction.
By separating these layers, platforms can maintain complete sovereignty over their trading environments and user experiences while strategically aligning with institutional-grade infrastructure ecosystems. This strategic framework allows modern exchanges to leverage advanced Digital Asset Custody infrastructure such as Cobo’s behind the scenes, ensuring that backend wallet management scales elastically alongside trading spikes.
Capitalizing on Market Momentum and 400× LeverageIn a derivatives arena where platforms offer up to 400× leverage on perpetual contracts, capital efficiency and market agility are core business metrics. To capture market momentum, an exchange needs the ability to rapidly expand its asset offerings, supporting everything from legacy crypto assets to sudden, trending altcoins across a massive library of trading pairs.
Adopting a flexible, scalable Wallet-as-a-Service (WaaS) solution such as Cobo’s could completely rewrite the development timeline for high-growth exchanges. Instead of spending months of engineering capital building out custom backend wallet architectures for every new blockchain network, platforms can deploy localized infrastructure in days.
This agility allows platforms to instantly scale their listings to over a thousand trading pairs without compromising security or delaying time-to-market. It mirrors the exact operational advantages seen during high-velocity market events, similar to how advanced wallet infrastructure empowers platforms during sudden asset surges; allowing exchanges to pass that speed and liquidity directly to their global user base.
A Mature Foundation for GrowthThe synergy between trusted infrastructure ecosystems and global trading platforms represents the natural evolution of a maturing crypto market. As WEEX continues to scale its global spot and derivatives offerings for over 6 million users, adopting robust backend paradigms proves that platforms no longer have to compromise between cutting-edge trading velocity and uncompromised structural security.
ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately
On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.
Morning Report | OpenAI has submitted an S-1 registration statement draft to the U.S. SEC; Morpho completes $175 million financing
Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market
Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle
Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."
$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage
