Hyperliquid Policy Center Asks SEC and CFTC to Align Rules on Perpetual Contracts

Hyperliquid Policy Center has filed a formal comment with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, asking the two agencies to coordinate how they classify and treat perpetual contracts. The submission argues that a unified regulatory approach would give more perpetual markets a clear path to operate under U.S. oversight rather than offshore.

Perpetual futures, or perpetuals, are derivative contracts that let traders hold leveraged long or short positions without an expiration date. They have become one of the largest product categories in crypto trading, and Hyperliquid itself has built a multi-asset perpetuals venue that has scaled quickly enough to draw attention from established, traditional exchanges.

Two agencies, one product

In the United States, jurisdiction over derivatives has historically split between the SEC, which oversees securities-based products, and the CFTC, which regulates commodity and swap markets. Perpetual contracts referencing digital assets can fall into either bucket depending on how the underlying token and the contract structure are interpreted.

That ambiguity has left exchanges and platform operators uncertain about which rulebook applies to a given perpetual product. Hyperliquid Policy Center’s filing asks the two regulators to agree on a common classification framework so that market operators are not left guessing which agency has authority, or facing conflicting requirements from both.

Why the timing matters

The comment lands as Hyperliquid’s perpetuals platform has expanded its asset coverage and trading activity, a growth trajectory that has reportedly caught the eye of legacy exchange operators watching a decentralized venue compete for order flow traditionally handled by regulated futures markets. A harmonized classification standard from the SEC and CFTC could reduce the compliance burden for platforms seeking to bring perpetual products fully onshore.

For traders, the practical stakes are straightforward. Clear jurisdictional lines determine whether U.S.-based venues can legally list perpetual contracts on digital assets, how much leverage they can offer, and what disclosure and margin rules apply. Regulatory clarity has also been cited by industry participants as a precondition for larger institutional capital to enter onshore perpetuals markets rather than routing volume through offshore platforms.

What comes next

Neither the SEC nor the CFTC has publicly responded to the specific request from Hyperliquid Policy Center. Any move toward a joint classification framework would likely require formal coordination between the two agencies, a process that has moved slowly in past instances of overlapping crypto derivatives jurisdiction.

For now, the filing adds Hyperliquid’s voice to a broader industry push for regulatory certainty around perpetual products, a category that continues to expand in both trading volume and the number of assets it references, even as its legal treatment in the U.S. remains split between two separate regulators.

Sources

• theblock.co
• coingape.com