DraftKings Launches DKeX Exchange With Maker-Taker Fees That Mirror Kalshi, Raising Questions on Fee Generation and Vertical Integration

DraftKings launched its proprietary prediction market exchange DKeX last week. The timing lines up with the World Cup knockout stage and positions the company ahead of the busy fall sports calendar. With an internal market-making division now in place, DraftKings is betting on advanced pricing and algorithmic modeling to capture more of the prediction markets opportunity.

Jason Robins, DraftKings CEO, highlighted the potential during the company’s first-quarter earnings call. DraftKings should theoretically become one of the world’s top three market-makers. The company already topped $3 billion in annualised consumer volume on its prediction market arm during an initial testing period.

Jason Robins also pointed to integration benefits with the newly launched super app. “DKeX provides a vertically integrated foundation for DraftKings Predictions, strengthening our prediction markets content and capabilities, giving us greater control over the technology that powers those offerings, and enabling us to move faster as we continue enhancing our unified app.”

After eighteen years across iGaming and sportsbook operations on the supplier and data infrastructure side, I see vertical integration as a direct play for control over the order book. That control can tighten spreads and improve risk decisions on the trading floor.

Fee Structure Matches Kalshi Model

DraftKings formally entered the prediction markets space in December with DraftKings Predictions, a platform regulated by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Earlier partnerships with the CME Group and Crypto.com meant the company missed out on collecting trading fees as a market-maker.

The vast majority of top players generate revenue through trading fees. Polymarket released a new fee structure for its maker-taker model in the spring ahead of the NCAA Final Four. Kalshi uses a parabolic formula aimed at maximising liquidity, where limit orders for market-makers cost roughly four times less than market orders for takers.

DraftKings appears to follow a comparable approach. Market-takers pay anywhere from $0.005 to $0.01 per contract depending on the contract price. The tiered schedule breaks down as follows: contract price $0.01 to $0.19 carries $0.01 per contract, $0.20 to $0.96 carries $0.02 per contract, $0.97 to $0.99 carries $0.01 per contract, and the maker fee sits at $0.0025 per contract.

This maker-taker split directly echoes Kalshi’s liquidity incentives. It rewards resting orders on the book while charging takers for immediate execution. From the supplier side, such structures shape how quickly liquidity builds around key events.

Order-Book Mechanics and Liquidity Implications

A market-maker places orders that rest on the order book without immediate execution. Market-takers hit those orders right away to complete trades with reasonable speed.

DKeX now gives DraftKings direct ownership of this mechanics layer. The vertical integration removes reliance on third-party venues and lets the company’s data scientists and pricing team optimise the book in real time. That should tighten bid-ask spreads and support higher volume during NFL and college football seasons.

Liquidity remains the critical variable. Kalshi’s parabolic fee model and Polymarket’s recent adjustments both target deeper books by making it cheaper for makers to provide resting liquidity. DraftKings’ comparable fees suggest it is chasing the same outcome. Yet the company must still prove it can pull enough external capital onto its order book to match the scale of established venues.

In my experience across European regulated markets, operators price in regulatory and technology overhead quickly. The same dynamic applies here. Control over the exchange should accelerate product iteration, but only if the fee capture covers the cost of maintaining that control.

Risk, Counterarguments and the Investment Hurdle

The launch raises clear questions about fee generation. DraftKings has cautioned that its prediction markets investment could generate category losses of up to $300 million this year. Some analysts view that figure as conservative, with Bank of America estimating losses could reach $550 million.

Market-making carries high gross margins, often approaching 95%. Citizens analyst Jordan Bender wrote in a research note that the exchange business represents a meaningful long-term EBITDA opportunity. Citizens models $243 million of total market-making revenue in 2027.

Still, the near-term losses are substantial. The company must convert its pricing expertise and super-app synergies into sustained trading volume that actually generates those maker-taker fees. If liquidity stays thin, the bid-ask capture and fee income may not offset the upfront spend.

This is the core risk. Vertical integration delivers greater control, but control alone does not guarantee profitable order flow. Competitors such as Polymarket and Kalshi have already tuned their fee models to attract makers. DraftKings enters that race with a comparable structure yet carries a heavier investment load in 2026.

Stock Reaction and Broader Market Signal

Following the announcement, shares in DraftKings jumped 11% to approximately $27.59 per share. Despite the surge, DraftKings is still down considerably from post-Super Bowl levels in 2025 when it traded in the low $50s. Some analysts believe the exchange could spark a rebound.

Jordan Bender called market-making a highly attractive endeavour because of those 95% margins. Vertically integrated platforms such as the new exchange from DraftKings have set the stage for increased M&A across exchanges, sportsbooks and consumer-facing firms.

Analysts describe 2026 as a watershed year for prediction markets. Kalshi is pursuing a new funding round that would value the company at $40 billion, up from a $22 billion valuation earlier this year that itself doubled the 2025 figure.

The Bottom Line is that DraftKings has placed a sizable bet on vertical integration and maker-taker economics that closely track Kalshi’s playbook. The order-book control and pricing edge should improve liquidity and trading-floor P&L over time, yet the $300 million to $550 million loss range for 2026 shows the immediate hurdle is steep. Operators watching this space will track whether DKeX can pull enough maker volume to turn those fees into sustainable EBITDA. The data will tell the story by the end of the fall sports calendar. For teams evaluating how prediction markets fit into broader sportsbook strategy, our advisory services page outlines structured ways to assess build-versus-partner decisions and event-contract mechanics.