The Hyperliquid Policy Center has filed an official comment letter urging U.S. financial regulators to create a unified regulatory framework for perpetual contract products. The group says the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should apply consistent treatment to identical financial instruments, regardless of which agency has jurisdiction.

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

Unlike traditional futures contracts, which have fixed expiration dates, perpetual contracts are designed to trade continuously. They use periodic funding rate mechanisms to keep prices aligned with the value of the underlying reference asset. That structure, the organization argues, creates classification challenges under current U.S. financial law.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center said perpetual contracts should be categorized according to their economic mechanics rather than the type of asset they reference. Under that approach, perpetuals tied to cryptocurrencies, commodities, or equities would receive the same legal treatment even if the underlying markets differ. The group also suggested that cash-settled equity perpetuals with futures-like characteristics could fit within the security futures category, which is already recognized under the regulatory authority of both agencies.

Ambiguous rules can leave exchanges, market participants, and regulators operating with different assumptions about the same product, which helps explain why the classification debate has become so active as perpetuals move closer to mainstream U.S. oversight. The HPC said the lack of clear standards increases the likelihood of disputes over which exchanges can list which products, and that those disputes could end up in court. It argued that harmonized rules would allow trading venues to compete on market depth and execution quality rather than on regulatory uncertainty.

That risk has already appeared in practice. CME Group filed a lawsuit against the CFTC after the commission authorized the first domestic perpetual contracts for Coinbase and Kalshi last June. CME and Intercontinental Exchange also raised concerns that platforms such as Hyperliquid could enable market manipulation.

The commodity regulator approved those first perpetual products in May. After that, both federal oversight agencies opened public consultations on how existing derivatives rules should apply to newer products.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center also urged regulators to give exchanges some discretion when deciding whether to list products. It said initial guidance could come through interpretive releases or staff-level determinations, followed by full formal rulemaking.

Hyperliquid processed about $3 trillion in notional transaction volume in 2025 and has already surpassed $1.5 trillion in the current year. Its markets include bitcoin, ethereum, crude oil, precious metals, foreign exchange pairs, equity indices, individual securities, and exchange-traded funds.

President Trump recently referred to the trading venue in remarks, saying CFTC Chairman Michael Selig is working to bring Hyperliquid into U.S. markets in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.”

Following the presidential statement, Hyperliquid’s native Hype token rose 40%, according to The Block’s market pricing data.

Selig has framed the issue as one of geographic jurisdiction for perpetual markets rather than a question of whether the products themselves are viable. The CFTC is now reviewing how its existing authority could accommodate these instruments within domestic trading infrastructure.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center’s filing adds to the ongoing public comment process as regulators consider how to integrate the fast-growing perpetuals market into the U.S. financial system.