Novig pregame versus live monetization

The key point is that one dollar of Novig volume can mean very different economics depending on where it happens in the product. A pregame straight trade on Novig can generate zero trading fee, while a live taker trade generates a fee and a live maker fill can even trigger a credit paid out by Novig. That means reported exchange activity can signal strong engagement and better market depth without proving that the platform kept much net revenue after credits and operating costs.1 2 3 4

• Novig’s fee schedule is not a flat take rate on dollars traded. Pregame straight trades on app, web, and API are fee free, while live and futures taker trades pay 0.06 × price × 1 minus price × contracts. At 50 cents, 100 live contracts produce about $1.50 of fee, but the same pregame trade produces none.1
• Liquidity also has a direct cost. Novig pays eligible makers a credit equal to 25% of the taker fee on live fills, so some fee bearing activity is partly recycled back to the side posting quotes. More book depth can improve prices and fill rates, but it does not map one for one into retained gross profit.2 1
• This is the main contrast with Kalshi, where standard event contracts broadly charge taker fees and can also charge maker fees when resting orders execute. In other words, two exchanges can show similar contract volume while monetizing very differently, because their fee design determines how much of that volume is free, paid, or subsidized.3 4

The path forward is a mix shift story. If Novig can keep pregame markets liquid enough to pull users in, then convert more of that activity into live trading, futures, and parlays without overpaying for maker supply, volume should translate into revenue much more efficiently over time. That is the operating lever that matters more than raw handle alone.1 2 5