Kalshi's taker fee is 7% × p × (1−p) per contract, where p is the price. It's a parabola: it peaks at 50/50 and drops to almost nothing at the extremes. Settlement is free — winners and losers pay nothing at resolution.
| Price | Taker fee | % of price | Maker fee |
|---|---|---|---|
| $0.10 / $0.90 | $0.0063 | ~0.7–6.3% | ~$0.0016 |
| $0.30 / $0.70 | $0.0147 | ~2.1–4.9% | ~$0.0037 |
| $0.50 | $0.0175 | 3.5% | ~$0.0044 (0.9%) |
A resting limit order (maker) pays ~1.75%·p·(1−p) — about 75% cheaper than a taker order. That single choice is the biggest controllable lever you have.
Why the 50/50 zone is a trap
Worked example: a true-54%-chance bet at 50¢ is +8% EV gross. The taker fee eats 44% of it → +4.5% net. As a maker, only 11% is eaten. And if your read is off by just 2 points, the taker version flips negative. Most retail has no idea.
The platform profits when you churn
The market is zero-sum before fees and negative-sum after — this affects every participant, regardless of skill. The house wins on volume (~$1.5B annualized in early 2026), not on who's right. Churn is the product they sell.
The platform's incentive (churn) is exactly what kills the retail trader: round-trip fees, 50/50 trading, over-trading. An honest solver's advice is anti-rake by construction — be a maker, trade the extremes, hold to settlement, abstain by default.