[Trader Criticizes Kalshi Data 'Fabrication': 61% Comes from Multi-Event Combination Bets, Actual Transactions Differ by 14x from Reported Figures] BlockBeats News, September 21 — Recently, Kalshi's crypto perpetual contract transaction data has faced concentrated scrutiny from the community. The controversy began with crypto perpetual contracts: traders pointed out that the open interest for ETH perpetual contracts is only around several million dollars, yet daily trading volume reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, with turnover data abnormally high. Kalshi's crypto business lead, IcoBeast, later responded by separating perpetual contracts from the crypto prediction market in his explanation, stating that the prediction market does not have similar market-making rebates, and its statistical metrics can be compared with industry peers. However, community discussions did not stop at perpetual contracts, as the "fabrication allegations" spread to the prediction market's main business. Renowned prediction market trader @retardmode posted that approximately 61% of the transaction volume disclosed by Kalshi comes from "multi-event combination bets." This refers to "parlays"—bundling the outcomes of multiple events into a single bet, where all predictions must be correct to win. The platform does not calculate based on the actual money users invest but instead uses a face value of $1 per contract. For example, if a user spends $1 to buy a combination bet that could yield $14.1 if all predictions are correct, the platform records it as $14.1 in transaction volume. Nearly half of these combination bets involve 11 or more events, making the odds of winning extremely low. Based on this calculation method, Kalshi's actual transaction volume yesterday was approximately $136 million, but the publicly disclosed figure was $1.91 billion. Polymarket's top trader @CarOnPolymarket further estimated that the actual transaction volume for Kalshi's combination bets might only be about 7.1% of the publicly disclosed combination bet amount. If extrapolated monthly, this could result in an exaggerated discrepancy of "approximately $4 billion in actual transactions versus $57 billion reported on paper."