- Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked the SEC and CFTC to coordinate how they classify perpetual contracts.
- The group proposes that a contract’s underlying structure and trading mechanics, not its reference asset, should determine its classification.
- The request comes as U.S. officials weigh bringing more perpetual trading under domestic oversight.
Hyperliquid Policy Center has urged U.S. regulators to adopt consistent rules for perpetual contracts, a product type that does not fit neatly into existing federal derivatives categories. The group argues that clearer classification could give more perpetual markets a route to operate under U.S. regulatory oversight. Its comment was directed at both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
What Happened
The Hyperliquid Policy Center submitted a comment asking the SEC and CFTC to coordinate their treatment of perpetual contracts. In its view, a contract’s classification should depend on its structure and the way it trades, rather than on the asset it references.
U.S. law generally sorts derivatives into futures and swaps. Perpetual contracts, however, share characteristics with both. Conventional futures carry a set expiration date, whereas perpetuals do not expire. Instead, funding payments are used to keep a perpetual’s price close to the price of the asset it tracks. This difference has left open questions about how these products should be regulated.
The group said the underlying asset should decide which regulator has oversight of a given contract. At the same time, it argued that the reference asset should not determine whether a product counts as a future or a swap. Under this framework, comparable perpetual contracts would receive the same classification regardless of the market in which they trade.
For equity perpetuals, the group suggested that cash-settled contracts with traditional futures features could qualify as security futures. Both the SEC and CFTC already oversee this category, and registered securities and futures exchanges are able to list security futures under the current framework.
The comment also asked regulators to preserve flexibility for exchanges when they make product listing decisions. It further called for updates to the security futures framework so that it can accommodate newer contract structures.
Why It Matters
For investors, the classification question is practical. The regulatory category a product falls into determines which agency oversees it, what rules govern its listing and trading, and which intermediaries can offer it. Unclear treatment can make it harder for traders and institutions to assess the legal footing of a product before committing capital.
For the broader crypto market, the outcome could shape how perpetual contracts are offered to U.S. customers. If regulators adopt a consistent approach, platforms may find a clearer path to compliance. If the rules remain ambiguous, the same products could face differing treatment depending on the underlying asset, which would add complexity for exchanges and market participants alike.
The proposal also extends beyond crypto-native assets. Because the group addressed equity perpetuals, the question of how these contracts relate to securities law reaches into traditional market structure as well.
Market Context
The regulatory debate follows recent steps by both agencies. In May, the CFTC approved the first U.S.-listed perpetual contracts and permitted them to trade as futures. That decision marked a notable development for a product that has grown quickly on offshore and crypto-native venues.
The SEC and CFTC have also sought public feedback on how existing derivatives rules apply to newer instruments. Regulators are examining definitions that cover swaps, security-based swaps, futures and security futures. One of the open questions is whether cash-settled equity perpetuals can qualify as security futures, which is the issue the Hyperliquid Policy Center addressed directly.
The policy group said more than $480 billion in perpetual contract volume has traded through Hyperliquid markets over the past ten months. According to the group, that trading has covered commodities, currencies, equity indices and individual stocks.
The proposal also arrives amid public attention on Hyperliquid’s potential presence in the United States. President Donald Trump recently commented on the matter, saying: “I understand Mike is also working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” He was referring to CFTC Chairman Michael Selig. Selig, for his part, has framed the discussion around where perpetual markets will operate rather than whether they will exist. The CFTC is now considering how its existing authority can accommodate these products within U.S. markets.
What to Watch Next
Readers should monitor whether the SEC and CFTC issue joint or coordinated guidance on perpetual contracts. Regulators could begin with interpretive guidance, policy statements or staff action, according to the group’s comment. Formal rulemaking could follow later, as the agencies gain more experience with how perpetual markets function.
Developments on the security futures framework are also worth tracking, particularly any changes that address newer contract structures and the treatment of cash-settled equity perpetuals. Any update to exchange listing flexibility would be significant for platforms considering U.S. offerings.
Finally, watch for further statements from U.S. officials about Hyperliquid’s potential path into the country. Because perpetual products carry distinct risks, including those linked to funding payments and leverage, readers should review official regulatory materials and product documentation carefully before drawing conclusions about any specific platform or contract.
Source: original report