Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 14, 2026 · 5:09 PM ET

A $10,000 perpetual-futures market order carries a $12 fee on Kalshi versus $4 on Polymarket, according to Datawallet’s comparison, updated October 10, 2026. The difference comes alongside higher leverage limits on Polymarket, although geographic restrictions mean the two offerings are not available to the same users.

Fees and leverage diverge

Kalshi’s starting perpetuals fees are 0.12% for taker orders and 0.05% for maker orders, according to Datawallet. Polymarket’s corresponding rates begin at 0.04% and 0.0125%. Those schedules are distinct from the platforms’ fees for event contracts.

The leverage comparison also varies by asset. Datawallet reports that Kalshi lists 5.8x leverage on Bitcoin, 4.4x on Ethereum and 15.2x on gold. Polymarket allows up to 20x on crypto, the S&P 500, oil, gold and silver, with a 10x ceiling for other assets.

Access separates the offerings

The CFTC approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin contract on May 29, 2026, and trading started on June 3. Its perpetuals are available only to US users. Polymarket introduced its product on September 3, 2026, but excludes residents of the United States and Canada, according to Datawallet.

Kalshi offers 20 perpetual contracts covering 18 crypto assets, gold and silver, alongside event contracts in a single US dollar account. Polymarket’s international perpetuals use pUSD as collateral; its international platform and US app maintain separate accounts and balances.

Unlike event contracts with a fixed stake, perpetual futures track an asset’s price without an expiration date and permit leveraged exposure. Adverse price moves can cause the platform to close a position. Datawallet also reports that holders of Kalshi crypto perpetuals pay or receive funding every eight hours, making the order fee only one component of the comparison.

What it means for prediction markets

• Eligibility comes first: Polymarket’s lower perpetuals fees and higher leverage are unavailable to US residents, while Kalshi’s perpetuals are restricted to US users.
• Product distinctions matter: The $12-versus-$4 example applies to a $10,000 perpetual-futures market order, not an event-contract purchase.
• Leverage changes the risk: Perpetuals introduce the possibility of forced position closure, unlike the fixed-stake structure described for event contracts.
• Entry fees are not the whole picture: Kalshi crypto perpetuals also involve funding payments every eight hours.

Kalshi recorded $2.32 billion in trading volume for Monday, Oct. 12, according to Dustin Gouker’s Oct. 14 prediction-markets newsletter at nexteventhorizon.substack.com. The figure is a dated daily snapshot, rather than a measure of trading on Oct. 14.

Volume and product mix

The supplied headline puts parlays at 62% of Kalshi’s flow. However, the accompanying newsletter does not include that percentage or explain its calculation. The daily volume total is supported by the source; the parlay share cannot be independently checked against the supplied reporting.

That distinction matters when assessing the platform’s activity. Without a definition of “flow” or a methodology for the parlay figure, readers cannot establish whether the 62% share uses the same measurement basis as the $2.32 billion total. The material also provides no comparable daily series from which to determine a growth rate.

Sports remain central

Separate survey findings point to sports’ prominence among prediction-market users. According to Casino.org, as summarized in Gouker’s newsletter, the S&P Global Market Intelligence Kagan US third-quarter 2026 Consumer Insights survey found that 10% of respondents had traded on a yes/no exchange over the past year. Among prediction-market users, 70% had traded sports event contracts. Those figures measure participation, not trading volume, and do not validate the headline’s parlay share.

What it means for prediction markets

• Keep the dates aligned: The $2.32 billion figure covers Monday, Oct. 12, not the article’s Oct. 14 publication date.
• Treat the product split cautiously: The 62% parlay figure appears in the supplied headline but lacks supporting methodology in the accompanying source.
• Separate participation from turnover: The survey’s 70% sports participation finding provides context for product demand, not a measure of sports’ share of dollars traded.