Trading volume on Kalshi and Polymarket draws CNBC scrutiny

CNBC's reporting on Kalshi and Polymarket this week landed on something the legal coverage has largely talked around: the volume itself doesn't add up in the way you'd expect if these platforms were functioning as pure information-aggregation tools.

The specific concern is product concentration. On certain contracts — the reporting doesn't name every one, but the pattern is clear — volume is clustering in ways that look less like a distributed market expressing genuine uncertainty and more like a handful of participants moving size in the same direction. That is a different thing from a liquid, informationally efficient market. It is a thing regulators recognize.

Here is what I think the consensus read on this is missing. The debate around Kalshi and Polymarket has spent eighteen months focused almost entirely on the jurisdictional question — whether these are swaps, whether states can regulate them, whether the CFTC's preemption suits hold. The volume anomalies are being treated as a secondary concern, something to address once the legal architecture settles. I don't think that sequencing is right.

The jurisdictional argument and the market integrity argument are not the same argument, but they are not separable either. If you are making the case that prediction markets deserve federal protection because they aggregate information efficiently, the evidence that volume on certain products is concentrated in ways that look like positioning rather than pricing is not a footnote. It is the rebuttal. A court asked to weigh the public benefit of these markets against state regulatory interests will eventually be shown the volume data. The platforms' lawyers know this.

What I have seen before — and I am not naming the context because the mechanism is what matters — is that when a novel financial product scales faster than its surveillance infrastructure, the anomalies that emerge in the volume data tend to arrive before the enforcement action by roughly the same lag every time. The question is never whether the data is there. It is whether the institution with the mandate to act on it has the will to look before something breaks.

The CFTC, currently occupied with suing Ohio and Tennessee, has not announced any review of the volume concentration question on the underlying products it is simultaneously defending in federal court.

About the analyst

Eleanor Ashworth

Senior Markets Analyst

Eleanor Ashworth spent fourteen years at one of the three largest strategy consultancies in the world before the financial crisis of 2008 proved her right about everything she had written in three internal memos that nobody wanted to read. She was not one of the people who was wrong. Eleanor Ashworth is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.

Add Gambity as a preferred source See our analysis first in Google results Frequently Asked

How do prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket aggregate information through trading volume?

Prediction markets function as information-aggregation tools by allowing distributed participants to express genuine uncertainty through trading activity, with volume patterns reflecting the market's collective assessment of event probabilities. When trading volume is distributed across many participants moving independently, the resulting price signals efficiently incorporate available information. However, concentrated volume — where a handful of participants move size in the same direction on certain contracts — indicates positioning rather than pricing discovery, which undermines the informational efficiency that justifies these platforms' regulatory protection.

What specific volume anomalies on Kalshi and Polymarket prompted CNBC's recent scrutiny?

CNBC's reporting identified product concentration on certain contracts where volume clusters in ways inconsistent with a distributed market expressing genuine uncertainty. The reporting did not name every contract, but documented a clear pattern of volume concentration that suggests positioning activity rather than the dispersed, independent trading expected in informationally efficient markets. Eleanor Ashworth of Gambity notes that this product-specific concentration pattern is the mechanism typically preceding enforcement action when novel financial products scale faster than their surveillance infrastructure.

What happens to Kalshi and Polymarket's regulatory defense if volume concentration persists?

The platforms' legal argument for federal protection rests on their claim that prediction markets deserve protection because they aggregate information efficiently. Volume data showing concentrated positioning on certain products directly rebuts that efficiency claim and becomes a material rebuttal when courts weigh public benefit against state regulatory interests. The platforms' lawyers understand that volume concentration evidence will eventually be presented in federal court, making the data quality a threshold question for the outcome of ongoing CFTC preemption suits.

Why hasn't the CFTC announced a review of volume concentration on its defended products?

The CFTC is currently occupied with defending prediction markets against state regulatory authority while simultaneously suing Ohio and Tennessee over jurisdiction, leaving the volume concentration question unaddressed despite the agency's mandate to monitor market integrity. Historical precedent shows that when novel financial products scale faster than surveillance infrastructure, the lag between observable volume anomalies and enforcement action follows a predictable pattern. The question is not whether the data exists, but whether the institution with authority to act on it will investigate before market disruption occurs.

Markets