Perpetual futures contracts tied to individual stocks can now begin trading on regulated United States exchanges for the first time, marking a major milestone that extends a derivatives product popularized in cryptocurrency markets directly into traditional equities. The landmark development was confirmed on Tuesday by Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael Selig, who announced that the novel financial instruments have been officially deemed approved under regulatory frameworks.
In a formal statement released Tuesday, Selig said that the single-stock perpetual futures contracts met the criteria for approval under CFTC Regulation 40.3. Consequently, these products are cleared to be offered on registered exchanges that hold dual registrations with both the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the purpose of trading security futures products.
Selig emphasized that bringing these popular derivative products into regulated US markets serves a vital policy objective: allowing domestic traders to access perpetual futures under robust US regulatory safeguards. He warned that without domestic availability, American market participants have historically been "forced to turn to offshore, and often unregulated, venues" to satisfy their demand for these instruments.
For the uninitiated, perpetual futures—frequently referred to as "perps"—allow traders to take speculative or hedging positions on an asset’s price movement without actually owning the underlying asset. Crucially, unlike traditional futures contracts, perpetual futures do not feature a fixed expiration date, meaning positions can theoretically be held indefinitely as long as the trader maintains sufficient margin. While these instruments have a long history in various alternative financial sectors, crypto exchange BitMEX notably helped popularize them across modern digital asset markets starting in 2016.
The CFTC’s green light for equity perps follows an aggressive wave of regulatory filings submitted throughout September. During that month, major industry players including Coinbase, Kalshi, and Kraken parent Payward—acting through its Bitnomial exchange—formally sought approval to offer perpetual futures tied to individual US stocks. They were quickly joined by OG.com just days later, with that platform proposing an innovative structure for contracts that could potentially trade around the clock on weekdays.
These domestic filings came on the heels of the CFTC’s historic May approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures contracts for Kalshi, alongside separate regulatory relief that permitted Coinbase to grant its users access to specific cryptocurrency perpetual futures listed on an affiliated foreign exchange. Despite the sweeping nature of Tuesday’s announcement, Chairman Selig did not immediately identify which specific exchanges would be the first to roll out the equity contracts, nor did he provide a definitive timeline for when live trading is expected to officially commence.
US Push for Perpetual Futures Faces Legal Challenge
The historic regulatory shift arrives nearly three months after President Donald Trump made headlines by revealing that the CFTC was actively working to bring Hyperliquid—a prominent decentralized crypto exchange widely recognized for its high-volume perpetual futures trading—into the United States in a "fully compliant and legal fashion." Trump delivered those remarks during an August 19 White House event, though at the time, neither the federal regulatory agency nor Hyperliquid had publicly outlined a formal mechanism for integrating the decentralized platform into the traditional US regulatory perimeter.
However, the broader federal strategy surrounding the expansion of perpetual futures has not advanced without encountering significant resistance from traditional financial institutions. In June, financial derivatives giant CME Group—through its Chicago Mercantile Exchange subsidiary—sued the regulator over its earlier approval of cryptocurrency perpetual futures. The CME lawsuit argued that these crypto perps should rightfully be classified and regulated as swaps rather than futures, contending that the agency had overstepped its statutory authority by treating them otherwise.
The distinction between swaps and futures is far from trivial in American financial law. Swaps are subject to an entirely different and often more rigorous suite of regulatory requirements, which can potentially encompass stricter ongoing reporting mandates, higher margin minimums, and specialized registration rules. In contrast, standard futures are permitted to trade under the more flexible, pre-existing framework designed for traditional futures exchanges.
The legal battle over crypto perps intensified in September when the CFTC formally moved to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit. In its motion, the regulatory agency argued that CME lacked the necessary legal standing to challenge the agency’s decisions because the exchange operator had failed to demonstrate any concrete financial harm and remained fully capable of listing similar competing contracts on its own platforms.
Wall Street Group Challenges CFTC Approval
Even as the regulatory doors open for single-stock perpetual futures, traditional Wall Street stakeholders are mobilizing to halt the initiative. On Tuesday afternoon, shortly after the CFTC’s announcement, the Capital Markets Alliance—an influential coalition representing major financial institutions including Cboe, Citadel Securities, and Healthy Markets—filed a formal lawsuit seeking to completely overturn the agency’s approval of the single-stock perpetual derivatives.
The coalition’s legal complaint contends that these new equity-linked contracts are fundamentally security-based swaps that fall squarely under the regulatory jurisdiction of the SEC, rather than the CFTC. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that the CFTC violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its sweeping policy decision and by neglecting to thoroughly evaluate the potential systemic risks and overall impact these products could have on everyday investors and market integrity. Alongside its core demand to vacate the approval, the legal challenge explicitly seeks an emergency injunction to prevent the approvals from taking effect while the litigation winds its way through the court system.
Comments (0)