Perpetual contracts, a structure popularized in offshore crypto markets, are entering the American regulatory perimeter one venue and asset class at a time — and a courtroom fight over a single Bitcoin product is now testing how far the format can spread through regulated US financial markets.

Unlike traditional futures, perpetual contracts have no set expiry and typically tether their price to the underlying spot market through periodic funding payments between long and short positions, a mechanism first popularized at scale by offshore crypto exchanges such as Binance and BitMEX.

On Sept. 2, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asked a federal court to dismiss CME's challenge to Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual contract. The lawsuit hinges on whether a contract without a fixed expiration belongs within the US futures regime. Before the court reaches that question, the regulator argues, CME must first demonstrate an injury the court can actually remedy.

The CFTC contends that CME is free to list a comparable digital commodity product of its own, meaning the exchange cannot blame the regulator for competitive harm that results from its own choice to stay out of the market. That threshold argument transforms a dispute over one Bitcoin contract into a broader test of how perpetual-style futures can expand through regulated US markets.

The backdrop is expanding quickly. Bloomberg has reported discussions about Coinbase seeking a regulated route to selected contracts linked to prices on Hyperliquid, while Kalshi is reportedly preparing to seek approval for a West Texas Intermediate crude-oil version. Together, these examples trace the migration of a crypto-native structure into mainstream American finance.

The scale is substantial. CryptoQuant data shows global crypto perpetual-futures volume reached approximately $61.7 trillion in 2025, up 29% from the previous year, while spot trading totaled $18.6 trillion over the same period. The CME case could shape how much of that activity US exchanges are able to pursue through the CFTC's futures framework. That volume has historically been concentrated on offshore venues operating outside US oversight, which is part of why regulators and domestic exchanges have focused on bringing the format onshore.

The CFTC says CME can compete in Bitcoin perpetuals

CME sued the CFTC on June 18, seeking to overturn the agency's May 29 approval of KalshiEX's Bitcoin perpetual contracts and the accompanying policy statement. CME argued that a contract without a fixed expiration is a swap rather than a future under the Commodity Exchange Act. The distinction carries practical weight: swaps fall under a different regulatory regime with registration, clearing, and trading requirements distinct from the designated contract market framework for futures.

In its dismissal motion, the CFTC said the relief CME seeks would fail to remedy the exchange's claimed competitive injury. The agency added that CME may list similarly structured digital commodity perpetuals, characterizing any disadvantage from declining that opportunity as self-inflicted.

The agency also argued that a judicial decision treating Kalshi's product as a swap would not necessarily remove the competing exposure from the market, because another venue might offer it under that classification. In the CFTC's view, even a win for CME on that point would still fail to redress the alleged injury.

Under the current schedule, CME has until Oct. 2 to oppose the dismissal motion. A ruling on standing alone could leave the deeper dividing line between futures and swaps unresolved.

The May 29 CFTC policy designated contract markets as the venues that could list similarly structured perpetuals tied to Bitcoin and digital commodities with deep, active, and continuous spot markets. Products outside that group were directed toward case-by-case review under Regulation 40.3. The result is a faster path for qualifying digital commodity products and a separate review track for other assets — a distinction that will matter as venues look beyond crypto toward energy and other established futures markets.

Coinbase's derivatives market page markets US perpetual-style futures with 24/7 trading and contract families tied to Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana. Notably, the name "perpetual" covers different contract mechanics in the emerging US market. Coinbase's official help material describes the covered contracts as having five-year expirations, so they offer long-dated, continuously traded exposure, whereas a literally expiry-free contract requires different terms.

In June, a CFTC staff letter granted conditional relief for requests from Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial to remove expiration dates from existing digital commodity perpetual-style contracts that had been set to expire on June 30.

Regulated US perpetual-style crypto futures have thus moved from policy concept to operating category, even as the exact expiration mechanics vary by contract. CME's suit challenges the agency approach behind that change as rival venues adapt one of crypto's largest trading formats.

Hyperliquid would test an on-chain bridge

Hyperliquid and Payvard are reportedly discussing a structure for registered US users, under which Payvard subsidiary Bitnomial — a regulated derivatives venue — would offer selected contracts tied to token prices on Hyperliquid. Payvard completed its acquisition of Bitnomial in August, adding its US derivatives exchange and clearing infrastructure.

A political signal came on Aug. 19, when President Donald Trump said during a White House technology event that his administration was working on a US route for Hyperliquid.

If such a structure were signed off, it would test a bridge between a registered domestic venue and token prices formed in an on-chain market. Surveillance, market integrity, and the precise relationship between the venues would all turn on the approved design.

Meanwhile, Polymarket's international site shows live leveraged crypto perpetual markets, while Polymarket US operates as a separate platform. The international product demonstrates how quickly crypto-native venues are expanding the format, supplying global context for the US developments.

Oil brings the model into traditional futures

In June, the CFTC requested public comment on 24/7 futures trading and perpetual contracts for storable, physically delivered energy commodities, including crude oil — placing the structure under active review in a longstanding futures market.

Kalshi is reportedly preparing a CFTC filing for a perpetual contract tied to WTI crude oil, potentially as soon as the following week.

A WTI proposal would follow the CFTC's case-by-case route. Its review would also confront the practical differences between a cash-referenced crypto contract and a market built around a physical commodity with established delivery infrastructure. Perpetuals are being considered for a traditional commodity market where CME is an incumbent, placing the new structure closer to the core of established derivatives competition. WTI crude oil is among the most heavily traded commodity benchmarks in the world, which is why extending perpetuals to it would mark a significant step beyond crypto-native use.

A quick CFTC victory on standing would preserve the agency's framework without a ruling on the futures-versus-swaps question. Other exchanges could read that result as support for proposing similar contracts, subject to the applicable listing or review process. Continued litigation on the merits, by contrast, would put the statutory classification question before the court. A decision on whether a no-expiry contract can qualify as a future would create a clearer legal boundary, though the period before a ruling could complicate product planning.

Regulatory sign-off for selected Bitnomial contracts linked to Hyperliquid prices would test the on-chain bridge, and acceptance of a WTI perpetual would show the structure crossing into a traditional commodity.

The CFTC is now defending its approach in court while exchanges probe its limits, with perpetual-style products entering the regulated US market. The next phase will depend on whether CME has standing, how a court classifies the Kalshi contract, which venues can meet the CFTC's conditions, and whether regulators allow the model to extend from digital commodities to on-chain prices and physical markets.