Venue and strategy selection for a small, automated, US-based trading operation (6–12 month horizon)

Desk memo. Observation date: 2026-11-08. Perspectives used: head of trading, quant researcher, market-structure specialist, risk/compliance officer, adversarial reviewer.

Profile assumed: one operator, AI coding agents for research, one always-on cloud VM (not colocated), USD 1k–25k starting capital that can scale, a US person resident in the US, and a strong preference for staying legal.

How to read this memo. Every line is tagged with one of these:

• [F] a fact taken from a cited source, with its date where it matters.
• [I] an inference made by the desk.
• [E] an estimate. All return, capacity and probability numbers are estimates.
• [U] unknown or unverified.

Method limits. Research used web search plus direct fetches of a handful of primary pages: Polymarket fee and liquidity-rewards docs, Paradigm's challenge page, The Block, and Datawallet's Papertrade explainer. Several facts below come from search-engine summaries of secondary sources and are marked as such. No order-book data was downloaded, no backtest was run and no account was opened. Nothing here is a guarantee of returns, nor legal or tax advice.

---

0. Bottom line (adversarial reviewer signed off on this wording)

1. No venue/strategy pair is clearly attractive in dollar terms at USD 5k. [I/E] The best realistic outcome at 5k is roughly a few hundred to about two thousand USD per year after costs. The loss branch is of similar size. Nearly all of the value at this size is in learning: building the simulator, the measurement tooling and a live track record that can be scaled.

2. US legality sets the menu before economics does. [F/I] Hyperliquid's interface terms exclude US persons [F, per secondary summaries of the ToS]. So does Polymarket's international CLOB, whose US users are directed to the CFTC-regulated Polymarket US app [F]. That removes most of the richest crypto-native reward programs from consideration. For a US person the legally clean venues are Kalshi, Polymarket US (a DCM reached through FCMs) and CFTC-regulated crypto futures such as Coinbase Derivatives' nano perpetual-style futures.

3. Ranked shortlist:

   1. Kalshi selective passive market making in mid-liquidity, fee-light series. Use maker incentive programs only where they are live, and treat them as a bonus.
   2. Polymarket US ↔ Kalshi cross-venue relative value, built as maker-first quoting that leans on the other venue's price, not pure taker arbitrage.
   3. Regulated cash-and-carry / funding capture (Coinbase nano perp-style futures against spot). This is a low-return benchmark and capital parking spot, not an edge.

4. The Paradigm challenge is a good model of PM market making, with three important differences in live markets (section 3):

   • Live retail flow is not symmetric. Longshot buying is biased.
   • Snipers are humans and bots with news, not one omniscient arbitrageur.
   • Fees and rewards change the P&L identity.

   The Kalshi microstructure evidence fits the model. Makers do much better than takers, but the average maker still lost money on Kalshi in the Bürgi–Deng–Whelan sample [F]. So naive quoting is negative-EV, and the edge comes from choosing where and when not to quote.

5. If the operator's alternative is T-bills plus their own time, the honest result is a modest-EV, high-learning project. Size it so that losing it is irrelevant, and kill it fast if the shadow-phase metrics in section 6 are not met.

---

1. Evidence base: key current facts

1.1 Prediction markets

Item	Fact	Source
Polymarket fee formula	fee = C × feeRate × p × (1−p), taker only. "Makers are never charged fees."	[F] Polymarket docs – fees, fetched 2026-11-08
Polymarket taker rates by category	Crypto 0.07; Sports 0.05; Finance/Politics/Mentions/Tech 0.04; Economics/Culture/Weather/Other 0.05; Geopolitics 0 (fee-free); Combos 0.05	[F] same page
Polymarket maker rebate share	Crypto 20%, Sports 15%, most others 25%, Combos 0%. Paid daily in proportion to filled maker volume, at Polymarket's discretion.	[F] same page; maker rebates program
Polymarket fee rollout	Taker fees started on 15-minute crypto markets in Jan 2026 and extended to most categories on 2026-03-30. Dynamic fees on short crypto markets (reported 2026-07) explicitly target latency arbitrage.	[F] The Block, Finance Magnates
Polymarket liquidity rewards	Score is S=((v−s)/v)²·b within a per-market max spread v and minimum size. Two-sided score = min(bid, ask). Single-sided orders score at 1/3 in the 0.10–0.90 range and must be two-sided outside it. Book sampled once per minute at a random offset, 1,440 samples per UTC day. Paid daily, $1 minimum.	[F] Polymarket docs – liquidity rewards, fetched 2026-11-08
Polymarket reward pools (examples)	Crypto TWAP program (now ended): $1M through August across 5m/15m/4h markets. ">$5M" April 2026 sports/esports incentive. World Cup 2026 program ran 06-11 to 07-19.	[F] docs above; [F, secondary] search summaries
Polymarket holding rewards	4.00% annualized on position value in a small set of long-dated markets. Variable, treasury-funded, paid daily.	[F] Polymarket docs – holding rewards
Polymarket US	CFTC Amended Order of Designation: a DCM with an intermediated (FCM) model. App launched Dec 2025 via waitlist, broadened in May 2026, sports first. Public REST/WebSocket API with Ed25519 auth reported.	[F, secondary] Covers, DeFi Rate. [U] Whether Polymarket US has its own maker reward program, and what its fees are.
Kalshi fees	Taker fee ≈ 0.07 × C × p(1−p), rounded up. Maker fees only on listed series (e.g. Fed rate, CPI, jobs, GDP, NFL/NBA in an Oct 2026 list) at 0.0175, about a quarter of the taker rate. No settlement fee.	[F, secondary] search summary of Kalshi fee schedule PDF and guides
Kalshi incentives	Volume Incentive Program to end "no earlier than Oct. 13" 2026 amid wash-trading allegations. Liquidity Incentive Program page lists an end of 2026-09-01, but an amended version was filed effective 2026-10-28. A "Designated Liquidity Provider Market Making Program" was self-certified 2026-10-28.	[F] The Block 2026-09-30; Kalshi help – LIP; [F, secondary] CFTC filings list. [U] Current LIP pool sizes and terms.
Kalshi maker/taker returns	Over 300k contracts: takers lost about 32% on average and makers about 10%. All contracts averaged about −20% to −22% depending on version and fee treatment. Favorite-longshot bias, stronger at taker-accepted prices, shrinking over time.	[F] Bürgi, Deng, Whelan, "Makers and Takers: The Economics of the Kalshi Prediction Market"; VoxEU summary
Practitioner reward estimates	Claims that naive Polymarket reward calculators overstate net earnings 3–5× because they ignore adverse selection. One example: $5–30/day on $5–20k before losses.	[F that the claim exists; U whether it is true] DEV, Medium
Polymarket maker markouts	One independent note finds positive volume-weighted markouts in every maker-volume decile. Single dataset, no book reconstruction.	[F, weak] microstructure note
15-minute crypto markets	Only 36.8% of wallets were profitable in a studied week (pre-fee).	[F, secondary] Telonex

1.2 Perps, carry, DeFi

Item	Fact	Source
Hyperliquid fees	Tiered by 14-day volume. Base is about 0.045% taker / 0.015% maker. Rebates (−0.001% to −0.003%) only for >0.5% / >1.5% / >3% share of maker volume.	[F, secondary] Hyperliquid docs via summaries
Hyperliquid US access	Interface ToS lists the US as a restricted jurisdiction. Enforcement is by frontend geofence, but the terms still bind users.	[F, secondary] Datawallet, OneKey
Funding levels	Trailing 12-month average annualized funding to May 2026: BTC ≈ 5.2%, ETH ≈ 4.1%. Ethena moving into equity perps because crypto funding compressed. Historical ETH OI-weighted funding: 16% (2021), 0.6% (2022), ~9% (2023), ~13% (2024).	[F, secondary] Odaily newsflash via search; Ethena docs
US-regulated perps	Coinbase Derivatives nano BTC (0.01) and ETH (0.10) perpetual-style futures since 2025-07-21. Up to 10x, funding mechanism, fees "from 0.02%". Available via IBKR and others since Feb 2026.	[F] The Block, The Block – IBKR. [U] Current funding formula and fee tier.
Kalshi perps	The Block reports Kalshi ETH perpetual futures volume (>$5B/month in disputed repeated trades), and Kalshi denies wash trading.	[F] The Block 2026-09-30. [U] Contract specs and access.
Drift	Exploited 2026-04-01 for roughly $200–285M (durable-nonce pre-signed transactions, attributed to a DPRK-linked group).	[F] Decrypt
Lighter	Zero fees for standard accounts, premium tiers paid. Volume reportedly fell ~80% from its Nov 2025 peak by Mar 2026. Reportedly pursuing a CFTC license, so no US access is established.	[F, secondary] Blockworks, Coinage
Papertrade.xyz	Launched 2026-10-10 on HyperEVM. Users trade against a protocol pool at the Hyperliquid best bid/offer midpoint (no independent oracle), up to 1000x, BTC/ETH only. Wins pay an "impact haircut" plus a 2% fee. Unpaid profits go to a FIFO debt queue repaid from new losses. Pool capped at ~$5M with surplus to PAPER stakers. PAPER is minted on losses (100/$ decaying), transfer-restricted. A 2-of-3 multisig can pause, freeze or change fees. No public audit report. A $1.28M launch-day midpoint-manipulation incident. Stakers received $46.15M of $49.78M gross revenue through mid-October.	[F, secondary] Datawallet, Crypto Briefing, Blockworks Research. [U] US geo-policy.

---

2. Candidate grid (all return figures are [E])

Returns are annualized, net of fees, adverse selection and infrastructure (assumed about $30–80/month for a VM and data), on deployed capital. Ranges are deliberately wide: they are roughly 10th–90th percentile desk judgements, not modelled distributions.

#	Venue + strategy	Edge source (who pays)	Net @5k	Net @50k	Capacity before decay	Competition / tech bar	US access	Verdict
A	Kalshi selective MM	Uninformed and longshot-biased takers pay the spread. Incentive programs where live.	−15% to +30%	−10% to +20%	~$100–300k per operator across many series	Medium: pro MMs and DLPs in top series, thin competition in the long tail. Seconds-level latency is fine outside news events.	Yes (CFTC DCM, KYC)	#1
B	Polymarket US ↔ Kalshi RV (maker-first)	Price dislocations between two retail pools. Taker-paid spread on the stale side.	−10% to +25%	−5% to +15%	~$50–200k (pairs are few, and capital is locked to resolution)	Medium-high: many bots scan the same pairs. Resolution-rule mapping is the moat.	Yes (both regulated). [U] Polymarket US API maturity.	#2
C	Regulated basis / funding carry (Coinbase nano perp-style futures or CME vs spot or ETF)	Leveraged longs pay funding and basis.	+0% to +6% (less after fees on small notional)	+2% to +7%	Very large	Low. Basis largely arbitraged.	Yes	#3 (benchmark)
D	Polymarket international CLOB MM + liquidity rewards + rebates	Rewards (treasury and taker-fee funded) plus spread	−10% to +40% (if accessible)	−5% to +25%	Pools are fixed and shared, so per-market capacity is small	High in rewarded markets: rewards attract MMs until marginal reward ≈ marginal adverse selection.	No. International platform restricts US persons, and US users go to Polymarket US.	Rejected (legal)
E	Polymarket/Kalshi news and resolution-speed trading	Stale quotes from slow MMs (you are the sniper)	Highly skewed, −30% to +100%	Capacity-limited	Tiny per event	Very high: latency races, colocated feeds. Polymarket dynamic fees aimed specifically at this.	Yes on Kalshi	Rejected: arms race, and venues are fee-taxing it
F	Hyperliquid perp MM / funding / HLP / vaults	Spread and rebates (top tiers only), funding, HLP liquidation profits	MM at base tier: negative to small. HLP historically positive but drawdown-prone.	—	Large	Very high for MM: maker fee is 0.015% until large share	No (ToS excludes US persons)	Rejected (legal plus competition)
G	Lighter / Aster / Drift MM or points farming	Zero fees, points/airdrop speculation	Speculative	—	—	High	Not established. Drift exploited Apr 2026.	Rejected
H	Papertrade.xyz (trade, LP, or stake PAPER)	Losers fund the pool, and stakers get surplus	Trader EV negative by construction (haircut, 2% fee, payout queue). Staking needs losses to mint PAPER first.	—	Pool cap ~$5M	Mid-price oracle invites manipulation. The only edge is manipulation, which is excluded.	[U] Likely gambling/bucket-shop exposure for a US person.	Rejected
I	Other PMs (Limitless, Myriad, etc.)	Same as A, thinner	[U]	Small	Low competition but thin flow	[U] US access, token incentive dependence	Rejected for now (insufficient evidence; revisit)
J	On-chain DEX LP / MEV / CEX-DEX arb	Swap fees minus LVR, or ordering rents	LP: often ≤0 net of LVR for passive. MEV: concentrated in specialist builders/searchers.	—	—	Very high	Legal grey areas for some MEV	Rejected
K	Polymarket holding rewards (4%)	Treasury subsidy	≈4% minus price risk of the position	Small set of markets	—	Low	Not for US persons (international)	Rejected (legal; below T-bills on a risk basis)

Why the 5k and 50k ranges differ:

• Fixed costs: infrastructure plus operator time are a larger drag at 5k.
• Queue and size limits: at 50k you cannot stay inside top-of-book in the long tail without moving it.
• Prediction-market capital is locked until resolution, so turnover limits realised return.

[I]

---

3. Testing the "Paradigm challenge ≈ live PM market making" claim

What the challenge is [F] (Paradigm, fetched 2026-11-08):

• Contract and price process: a binary contract on a 1–99¢ FIFO book. The latent score follows a Gaussian walk plus compound-Poisson jumps (about 2 jumps per run).
• Arbitrageur: an informed actor that knows p_t and sweeps every stale quote.
• Retail: Poisson arrivals, buys and sells with equal probability, LogNormal size.
• Competitor: a static ladder that never re-centres.
• Timing: you quote before the price moves, then the arb hits, then retail arrives.
• Scoring: passive edge against p_t.

A placed competitor reported that inventory skew and size control were decisive [F, secondary: write-up].

Where it matches live markets [I, supported]:

• Kalshi data show the structural split the challenge assumes: takers (largely uninformed retail) lose much more than makers [F, Bürgi et al.].
• Polymarket's own design reacts to latency sniping of stale quotes. Dynamic fees on short crypto markets were built to "redirect value from latency arbitrage toward genuine liquidity provision" [F].
• On Kalshi, single-name markets show the highest informed price impact, yet makers still earn more per contract there [F, secondary: NBER paper via search summary] (consistent with spread being compensation for adverse selection).

Where it breaks [I], and what each break implies:

1. Retail is not symmetric or uninformed in the challenge's sense.
   • Live flow has a favorite-longshot bias: takers overpay for cheap contracts [F].
   • Implication: the maker's edge depends on which side is quoted and at what price. Leaning offers into longshots is the structural edge.
   • The challenge's symmetric retail hides this. A simulator must model price-dependent buy/sell imbalance.
2. The "arbitrageur" is a distribution, not a god.
   • Live snipers are news-fast bots on scheduled releases (CPI, FOMC, game events), plus other venues' prices (sportsbooks, CME FedWatch, Polymarket ↔ Kalshi).
   • Adverse selection is concentrated in time, so a maker who pulls quotes around scheduled events and when correlated venues move avoids most of it.
   • The challenge's continuous omniscient sweep overstates adverse selection in quiet periods and understates it at events (jumps there are larger and more frequent).
3. The average live maker lost about 10% in the Kalshi sample [F].
   • In challenge terms, the median live maker quotes too tight or too large through jumps.
   • Edge exists only for the selective maker: quote-pulling, skew and series selection.
   • [I] So the challenge's lesson ("adapt from observed fills") is necessary but not sufficient. Live, the strongest signals are exogenous: event calendars and cross-venue prices.
4. Fees and rewards alter the P&L identity.
   • Live P&L = spread edge − adverse selection − maker fees (Kalshi listed series) + rebates/rewards (Polymarket: 15–25% of taker fees; Kalshi LIP/DLP where live) [F].
   • Polymarket's reward sampler (once per minute at a random offset, quadratic in distance from mid) pays for time-at-touch, not fills [F]. That creates a known exploit-and-defence game: quote tight but small, and pull fast.
   • The order-age rule on taker-delay markets [F] is the venue's defence against that.
5. Resolution and settlement risk. The challenge settles mechanically. Live markets carry rule ambiguity (UMA disputes on Polymarket, Kalshi rulebook interpretation) and multi-week capital lock [F, secondary: Orrery].
6. Competition is adaptive. The challenge competitor is static. Live competitors re-centre and also chase reward pools, so reward APYs compress until marginal reward ≈ marginal adverse selection [I].

Net verdict: the structure is right and the parameters are wrong. Use a challenge-style simulator as the core, but add four things:

• price-dependent retail imbalance
• event-clustered jump intensity tied to a real calendar
• an external "reference price" process that leads the book
• venue-specific fees, rewards and resolution lags

[I]

---

4. Ranked shortlist

Rank 1: Kalshi selective passive market making

Why it ranks first:

• It is the only venue that is US-legal, deep, programmable (REST/WebSocket/FIX API), and has peer-reviewable evidence that the maker side outperforms [F].
• Maker fees apply only to listed series [F], so you can pick fee-free series.
• Incentive programs are live or being restructured (LIP amended 2026-10-28, new DLP program) [F]. Treat them as upside, never as the thesis, because the Volume program was just killed [F].

Edge mechanism:

• Earn the spread from structurally uninformed and longshot-biased takers in mid-liquidity series (economics, weather, culture/mentions, long-dated politics). There, pro DLPs are thin and informed flow is predictable in time.
• Avoid adverse selection by:
  • pulling or widening quotes around scheduled releases and live game states
  • skewing on inventory
  • leaning against longshot overpricing
  • refusing to quote when an external reference (Polymarket price, sportsbook line, CME FedWatch, weather model update) moves

Data needed for a faithful simulator:

• Kalshi historical trades (public API) and forward-recorded L2 order-book snapshots/deltas via WebSocket. Assumption [U]: no free historical L2 archive, so start recording on day 1.
• Market metadata and rulebooks, settlement outcomes and timestamps.
• An event calendar (BLS, FOMC, NOAA model runs, game schedules).
• External reference prices: Polymarket public data, sportsbook odds, FedWatch.
• Fee schedule history and LIP/DLP terms, including reward pool per market and scoring.
• Queue-position model: FIFO, so estimate queue ahead from L2 deltas.

Minimum viable live setup:

• One VM in a US-East region, a Python/TypeScript bot, Postgres or Parquet recorder, and a risk process separate from the quoting process.
• Hard caps: per-market notional, per-event aggregate, daily loss.
• Kill switch: cancel-all on disconnect, stale data or clock skew.
• Funding: Kalshi KYC account funded by ACH.

Staged rollout and kill criteria [E thresholds]:

Stage	Duration	Capital	Pass criteria	Kill criteria
0. Record and simulate	3–4 weeks	0	Simulator reproduces realised spreads and fill rates within ±25% on held-out weeks	Cannot model fills (queue) within ±50%
1. Shadow quoting (compute quotes, log hypothetical fills vs. real tape)	2–4 weeks	0	Hypothetical markout at +5 min and at settlement > 0 after fees across ≥500 hypothetical fills	Markout ≤ 0, or edge concentrated in <3 markets
2. Small live	6–8 weeks	$1–3k, ≤$100 per market	Realised net P&L > 0 with 30-day markout positive. Max drawdown <10%. Fill-rate gap vs. shadow <30%.	Drawdown >15%, two consecutive negative 2-week periods, any operational incident causing an unbounded position
3. Scale	ongoing	Step up 2× per month to $25k, then $50k	Return per $ does not fall >40% per doubling	Edge per contract halves, or incentive cut removes >50% of P&L

Key unknowns to measure first:

1. Per-series adverse-selection cost (markout curve) versus quoted spread.
2. Queue position and fill probability at the touch.
3. The share of P&L from rewards versus spread.
4. Current LIP/DLP terms and eligibility for a small account [U].
5. How fast Kalshi DLPs re-centre after releases.
6. Capital lock-up and the turnover it allows.

Rank 2: Polymarket US ↔ Kalshi cross-venue relative value (maker-first)

Why it ranks second:

• Two regulated retail pools quote the same events (sports first on Polymarket US [F]), and prices diverge for reasons the sources document: fees, user bases, resolution sources [F, secondary].
• It is US-legal.

Why it is not first:

• Polymarket US's API, fees and reward terms are not verified from primary docs [U].
• Pure taker arbitrage is heavily scanned, and a 3¢ gross edge can be 0¢ net after fees [F, secondary].
• Resolution mismatch can lose both legs [F, secondary].
• Capital is split and locked across two venues [I].

Edge mechanism:

• Quote passively on the venue whose book is stale or thin, using the other venue's mid as the reference price. Hedge on fill with a taker order only when the net edge clears both fees.
• The moat is a curated, human-reviewed mapping of economically equivalent contracts, plus fee-aware hedging logic. It is not secret.

Data needed:

• Synchronized L2 recordings from both venues, with clock-synced timestamps.
• Contract-equivalence table (subject, threshold, source, cutoff time).
• Both fee schedules.
• Historical settlement divergences.
• Hedge-latency distribution (time from fill to hedge).

Minimum viable live setup: the Rank 1 stack, plus a Polymarket US account through its FCM path, a pair-mapping file with a mandatory human sign-off per pair, and a hedge-failure handler (unwind or hold-to-resolution rules).

Staged rollout:

• Shadow (3–4 weeks): log detected dislocations, simulated fills and hedge slippage.
  • Pass: ≥2¢ net per pair-trade median with ≥80% hedge success within 5 s.
• Small live: $2–5k split across venues, at most 10 pairs.
• Kill criteria:
  • any resolution-mismatch loss on a reviewed pair (stop and re-audit mapping)
  • net edge per trade under 1¢ for 4 weeks
  • hedge success under 70%
• Scale: only when there is enough pair supply (count dislocations per week over $X).

Key unknowns:

1. Polymarket US maker fees, rewards and API rate limits [U].
2. Overlap breadth beyond sports [U].
3. The frequency and half-life of dislocations above fees.
4. Withdrawal and transfer friction between venues.

Rank 3: Regulated funding/basis carry (benchmark and parking, not an edge)

Why it is on the list:

• It is a legal, scalable, backtestable way to earn above cash when funding is rich.
• It gives the desk a baseline. If strategies 1–2 cannot beat this plus T-bills, stop.

Why it is weak:

• BTC/ETH funding averaged about 4–5% annualized over the year to May 2026 [F, secondary].
• That is roughly cash-like after fees and margin drag, with tail risk from funding flips and margin calls in a spike.
• At $5k, nano-contract granularity and fees dominate [I].
• Ethena itself moved away from crypto basis because it compressed [F, secondary].

Edge mechanism:

• Collect funding/basis paid by leveraged longs.
• Size up only when 7-day realized funding exceeds the cash yield by a threshold (regime switch). Otherwise hold T-bills.

Data: Coinbase Derivatives funding/fee history [U on public archive], CME basis history, spot/ETF prices, margin rules.

Minimum viable live setup: an FCM account (e.g. via a broker offering Coinbase nano perps), spot or ETF hedge at the same broker, daily rebalance, and a margin buffer of at least 3× historical worst daily move.

Staged rollout:

• Backtest: must clear cash by at least 2% annualized net in the backtest window.
• Small live: 1 contract pair, to verify the funding accrual mechanics match the docs.
• Scale: only in rich-funding regimes.
• Kill criteria: net spread under cash for 30 days, which means returning to T-bills.

Key unknowns:

1. The exact Coinbase perp-style funding formula and fees [U].
2. Margin offsets between spot ETF and futures at the chosen broker [U].

---

5. What was rejected and why

• Polymarket international CLOB (rewards, rebates, holding rewards).
  • It is the most generous reward ecosystem [F], but the international platform excludes US persons, and US users are routed to the DCM [F/I].
  • VPN or offshore-entity workarounds create legal and account-seizure risk that compliance will not sign off on.
  • Revisit if Polymarket US gets equivalent programs.
• Hyperliquid (MM, funding, HLP, vaults, builder codes).
  • The ToS excludes US persons [F, secondary].
  • Economically, small makers pay 0.015% until they reach a large share of maker volume [F], so a small MM pays to provide liquidity against professional HFTs.
  • Builder codes require building a front-end business, which is out of profile.
• Lighter / Aster / Drift.
  • US access is not established.
  • Drift suffered a roughly $285M exploit on 2026-04-01 [F].
  • Points-farming EV depends on airdrop speculation, which cannot be backtested.
• Papertrade.xyz.
  • Trading is negative-EV by design: haircut plus 2% win fee, with profits subject to a FIFO payout queue [F].
  • The house pool is small relative to open interest [F, secondary].
  • The mid-price oracle has already been manipulated [F, secondary]. The only structural "edge" is manipulating Hyperliquid's mid, which is market manipulation and rejected outright.
  • PAPER is transfer-restricted and minted to losers. Staker dividends (large so far [F]) are a claim on future trader losses with dilution and admin-key risk.
  • US legal status is unclear (bucket-shop or gambling classification risk) [U/I].
• News and resolution-speed sniping.
  • It is a latency arms race against colocated bots.
  • Polymarket explicitly re-priced fees against it [F].
  • Defensibility is near zero for a single non-colocated VM.
• Other PMs (Limitless, Myriad).
  • Not enough verified data on depth, US access or incentive sustainability gathered in this pass [U].
  • Revisit with a one-week data pull before dismissing permanently.
• DEX LP / MEV.
  • Passive LP loses to LVR versus informed arbitrage in most volatile pairs [I, consistent with the LP/LVR literature].
  • MEV is dominated by vertically integrated searcher-builders.
  • Wrong profile.
• Kalshi Volume Incentive farming. The program has been terminated [F].

---

6. Cross-cutting risk register (risk/compliance)

Risk	Applies to	Mitigation
Incentive cut or rule change (Kalshi Volume killed in 2026; Polymarket fees changed several times in 2026) [F]	1, 2	Require spread-only P&L > 0. Rewards are upside only.
Resolution dispute or ambiguity	1, 2	Avoid markets with subjective criteria. Cap per-market exposure. Keep a rulebook review log.
Regulatory (CFTC actions on event contracts, state-level sports challenges) [I]	1, 2	Diversify series categories, and avoid relying on sports alone.
Operational (bot bug leading to runaway position)	all	Separate risk process, cancel-on-disconnect, position caps enforced server-side where available.
Correlated event jumps (one release moves many series)	1	Aggregate exposure by underlying event, not by market.
Tax (US event-contract and futures treatment) [U]	all	Consult a tax professional. Section 1256 treatment of event contracts is not settled here.

---

7. Defensibility summary

None of the top 3 relies on a secret rule [I]. The edge in 1 and 2 comes from execution quality, which competitors can copy only by doing the same work:

• quote-pulling discipline around events
• inventory management
• a reference-price feed
• a human-curated contract map

That is a moderate moat at small size and weak at large size, where professional DLPs compete directly. Rank 3 has no moat; it is a regime bet.

---

8. Open questions (unanswered in this pass)

1. Current Kalshi LIP/DLP reward pool sizes and small-account eligibility (amended 2026-10-28).
2. Polymarket US fee schedule, maker programs, API rate limits and product breadth beyond sports.
3. Whether any historical L2 order-book archive for Kalshi or Polymarket US is purchasable (e.g. third-party vendors) or must be self-recorded.
4. Current (Oct–Nov 2026) BTC/ETH funding levels on US-regulated venues.
5. Papertrade's geo-policy and audit status.
6. Limitless/Myriad US access and depth.
7. Exact current Hyperliquid fee table (the sources conflict).

9. Sources

Polymarket docs: fees · liquidity rewards · maker rebates · holding rewards — The Block: taker fees — Finance Magnates: dynamic fees — Covers: Polymarket US — DeFi Rate: Polymarket API — Kalshi fee schedule — Kalshi LIP — The Block: Kalshi ends volume program — Bürgi, Deng, Whelan · VoxEU — Paradigm challenge — Sniper's Tax — PM market-making note — Telonex — Orrery: resolution rules — Hyperliquid fees — Datawallet: Hyperliquid US — Ethena basis docs — The Block: Coinbase perp-style futures — Decrypt: Drift exploit — Blockworks: Lighter — Datawallet: Papertrade · Crypto Briefing: Papertrade · Blockworks Research: Papertrade