Overview
- The Hyperliquid Policy Center, the Blockchain Association and trade[XYZ] filed coordinated comment letters in late August urging the SEC and CFTC to adopt a single, economics‑based taxonomy for perpetual contracts.
- Perpetual contracts are derivatives with no fixed expiry that use periodic funding payments to keep prices in line with the underlying asset, and industry groups say that structure — not the referenced asset — should determine whether a contract is treated as a futures product.
- The groups argue that qualifying equity perpetuals could fit under the existing joint security‑futures framework so exchanges and clearinghouses can list them under shared SEC–CFTC oversight without new legislation.
- Supporters point to large on‑chain volumes — Hyperliquid’s filings cite roughly $480–$500 billion in ten months and about $4 billion in open interest — and say clear U.S. rules would repatriate liquidity and improve surveillance and customer protections.
- Opposition from incumbents and ongoing litigation complicate the path forward: CME and ICE have raised market‑integrity concerns and CME sued the CFTC after May approvals for U.S. perpetuals, leaving regulators to weigh risks to benchmarks, weekend liquidity and cross‑market surveillance.