TLDR
- Hyperliquid Policy Center wants crypto perpetual futures classified under MiFID II rather than MiCA.
- HPC says the economic structure of a product should determine its regulatory classification.
- The group argues perpetual futures should not be treated the same as retail CFDs.
- Circle is seeking changes to MiCA rules governing stablecoin reserves and bank deposits.
- Deutsche Börse and Chamber of Progress also submitted proposals during the EU MiCA review.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center is asking the European Commission to classify crypto perpetual futures as derivatives under MiFID II instead of MiCA. The group filed its response on September 30 as part of the Commission’s ongoing review of the EU crypto rulebook.
The Washington-based group argues that regulators should classify products by their economic structure, not the blockchain that records them. It says existing EU derivatives rules can cover perpetual futures without creating a separate legal framework.
Hyperliquid Policy Center Seeks MiFID II Treatment
The Hyperliquid Policy Center says MiFID II already contains derivative categories that can cover perpetual futures. It wants regulators to clarify how those rules apply to onchain markets and confirm that blockchain settlement does not change a product’s legal classification.
HPC also opposes treating perpetual futures like contracts for difference. It says trading venues using order books do not act as the direct counterparty to every trade. The group instead wants clear disclosure of funding methods, maintenance margins, and liquidation rules before customers trade.
Circle Challenges MiCA Stablecoin Reserve Rules
Circle used the same review to challenge MiCA rules that require e-money token issuers to hold at least 30% of reserves in commercial bank deposits. The requirement rises to 60% when regulators classify a token as significant. Circle wants a more flexible liquidity standard.
The company also wants changes to limits on government debt and bank exposure. European central banks also called in their response for removing MiCA’s bank-deposit floors and replacing them with liquidity requirements tied to asset maturity, adding another voice to the stablecoin reserve debate.
EU Review Draws Wider Industry Responses
HPC pointed to Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets as an example of how regulated firms could use public blockchain infrastructure while controlling leverage and access. HIP-3 markets briefly represented 75% of Hyperliquid perpetual volume in late July before falling to about one quarter recently.
Other groups also submitted proposals. Deutsche Börse requested a separate category for settlement e-money tokens, while Chamber of Progress supported rewards on such tokens and continued multi-issuance. The filings add to a broader EU crypto regulation review covering trading products and stablecoins.
The Commission must now assess competing requests from crypto firms, banks, market operators, and central banks. Its review could shape how the EU applies MiCA and MiFID II to onchain financial products without changing their core economic features across regulated digital asset markets throughout the European Union.
