1 hour ago
14
The Blockchain Association filed formal comments on August 25 urging the SEC and CFTC to build a joint regulatory framework for equity perpetuals, a class of derivatives that has generated massive volume overseas but remains effectively banned from US trading venues.
The filing arrives at a moment when both agencies are actively soliciting feedback on how to handle perpetual contracts, products that function like futures but never expire.
What the Blockchain Association is asking for
At its core, the proposal is straightforward: use the existing joint security futures framework that the SEC and CFTC already share as a template for regulating equity perpetuals. Rather than inventing new rules from scratch, the Association argues both agencies should adapt what already works.
The filing also calls for a “technology-neutral, outcomes-based approach” to regulation. Translation: don’t write rules that single out blockchain-based platforms, and focus on what a product does rather than what tech stack it runs on.
Equity perpetuals are perpetual futures contracts tied to equities that have no expiration date. Instead of settling at a fixed point, they use a mechanism called funding rates to keep the contract price tethered to the underlying asset’s spot price.
The jurisdictional tug-of-war between the SEC (which oversees securities) and the CFTC (which oversees derivatives) creates a no-man’s-land where equity perpetuals don’t fit neatly under either agency’s umbrella.
The Blockchain Association isn’t alone
The filing is part of a coordinated industry push. The Hyperliquid Policy Center submitted its own comments one day earlier, on August 24, pointing to over $480 billion in notional trading volume on its HIP-3 markets as evidence that demand for these products is real and growing.
Coinbase has also weighed in with similar submissions, creating what amounts to a united front among some of the crypto industry’s most prominent players.
The timing is not accidental. Both the SEC and CFTC issued a joint request for feedback on perpetual contracts earlier this year, part of a broader memorandum of understanding between the two agencies focused on innovation in derivatives markets.
Why this matters for US markets
The current setup pushes US traders toward offshore platforms if they want exposure to perpetuals. Offshore venues typically offer fewer investor protections, less transparency, and no recourse if something goes wrong.
The $480 billion figure cited by Hyperliquid provides useful context for the scale of what’s at stake, all flowing through venues that US regulators currently have no jurisdiction over.
The CFTC has shown some willingness to move. Recent policy statements from the derivatives regulator have opened potential avenues for certain types of perpetual contracts, signaling that at least one side of the regulatory equation is warming to the idea.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·