TLDR
- The Hyperliquid Policy Center has urged the SEC and CFTC to adopt a unified framework for classifying perpetual contracts
- The group argues contracts should be classified by their economic structure, not their underlying asset
- Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets have generated over $480 billion in trading volume in 10 months with $4 billion in open interest
- Traditional exchanges CME and ICE have raised concerns about Hyperliquid, with CME suing the CFTC in June over perpetual futures
- President Trump said the CFTC is working to bring Hyperliquid to the U.S. in a “fully compliant and legal fashion”
The Hyperliquid Policy Center has filed a comment letter asking U.S. regulators to build a shared framework for perpetual contracts. The group wants the SEC and CFTC to stop treating the same type of product differently depending on which agency oversees it.
LATEST: 🇺🇸 The Hyperliquid Policy Center is urging the SEC and CFTC to adopt a unified framework for perpetual contracts, arguing perps should be classified by economic structure rather than by underlying asset. pic.twitter.com/3XRagYWNRf
— CoinMarketCap (@CoinMarketCap) August 24, 2026
Perpetual contracts have no expiration date, unlike traditional futures. They use funding payments to keep their prices in line with the assets they track. That structure puts them in a grey area between futures and swaps under current U.S. law.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center says classification should be based on how a contract works economically, not what asset it references. Whether a perpetual tracks bitcoin, oil, or a stock should not change how it is defined under the law, the group argues.
The group also said that cash-settled equity perpetuals with futures-like characteristics could qualify as security futures. Both the SEC and CFTC already have oversight authority over that product category.
Regulatory Gaps Create Legal Risk
Without a clear taxonomy, the HPC says disputes over which regulator’s registered exchanges can list a product could end up in court. A unified framework would allow exchanges to compete on liquidity and execution quality instead of regulatory ambiguity.
That legal risk is already playing out. In June, CME sued the CFTC after the agency approved the first U.S.-listed perpetual contracts for Coinbase and Kalshi. CME and ICE have both raised concerns that platforms like Hyperliquid could be used to manipulate prices.
The CFTC approved those first perpetual contracts in May. Since then, both the SEC and CFTC have been gathering feedback on how existing derivatives rules apply to newer products.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center also asked regulators to give exchanges flexibility when making product listing decisions. It said initial clarity could come through interpretive guidance or staff action, with formal rulemaking to follow.
Hyperliquid’s Growth Draws Presidential Attention
Hyperliquid handled nearly $3 trillion in notional trading volume in 2025 and more than $1.5 trillion so far this year. Its markets cover bitcoin, ether, oil, gold, currencies, stock indexes, individual stocks and ETFs.
President Trump mentioned the platform last week, saying CFTC Chairman Michael Selig is working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S. in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.”
The Hype token rose 40% following Trump’s comments, according to The Block’s price data.
CFTC Chairman Selig has framed the issue around where perpetual markets operate, not whether they will exist. The agency is now looking at how its existing authority can accommodate these products within U.S. markets.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center’s letter is part of a broader public comment process as regulators weigh how to bring the fast-growing perpetuals market under domestic oversight.
