Perpetual futures familiar to crypto traders on offshore exchanges now have a regulated route into U.S. stocks. The proposed products would retain features such as no expiry and funding payments, but would trade on equity-market schedules and offer substantially less leverage.

U.S. stock perpetuals would generally cap leverage near 6.7 times. The proposals filed by Coinbase Derivatives and Kalshi would close on Friday afternoon and reopen on Sunday evening. Coinbase’s design calls for hourly funding, while Kalshi’s calls for daily funding. Coinbase’s existing stock perpetuals are a Bermuda product for eligible jurisdictions, separate from any potential U.S. offering.

In a November 3 statement, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said perpetual futures on individual stocks can begin trading on designated contract markets that are also notice-registered with the SEC as national securities exchanges for security futures. In practical terms, a venue must have standing with both regulators before listing the contracts. The products were deemed approved under CFTC Regulation 40.3, the process an exchange uses when asking the Commission to approve a new product rather than self-certifying it. The CFTC statement named neither a launch venue nor a specific stock.

Two exchange proposals filed on September 18, including one from Coinbase Derivatives, provide the clearest indication of how the products could work for traders accustomed to crypto perpetuals.

What carries over from crypto perpetuals

The core mechanics are familiar. A perpetual contract has no expiry date and does not roll into a new contract month. Funding payments between long and short positions help keep the contract near its reference price. Under the standard design, longs pay shorts when the perpetual trades at a premium to that price, while shorts pay longs when it trades at a discount.

As on crypto venues, a crowded long position can require repeated funding payments. The absence of an expiry therefore does not eliminate the cost of holding a position over time.

Much of the surrounding structure changes, however. The Coinbase Derivatives rule notice describes contracts that provide no ownership of the underlying stock. A long position would not give the holder shares or voting rights. Corporate events would instead affect the position through the contract terms.

Coinbase’s proposed rules state that ordinary cash dividends would be reflected through market pricing and funding, while stock splits and exceptional events could trigger contract adjustments. Crypto perpetuals generally have no comparable dividend treatment because tokens do not pay dividends and rarely split.

A trading week rather than a 24/7 market

The calendar is one of the biggest differences for crypto traders. Bitcoin perpetuals can react to Saturday news immediately. Both stock-perpetual proposals would close on Friday afternoon and reopen on Sunday evening. Weekend news could therefore reach the contracts hours before the stock market opens on Monday, but not at the moment it breaks.

The September 18 filings outline the proposed trading windows, funding schedules and periods when funding would pause. Both contracts would settle in cash. The final terms could differ from the proposals. The relevant filings are available from Coinbase Derivatives and Kalshi.

Funding is where the two designs diverge, particularly around corporate earnings. A company may report after the 4 p.m. market close while both perpetual contracts continue trading into the evening, when the stock’s regular session is closed.

Under Kalshi’s proposal, a premium that develops during those hours would not enter the funding calculation because premiums would be sampled only during the regular equity session. Coinbase would tie funding pauses to its own contract market rather than to the stock market’s hours.

Crypto traders often treat funding as a live measure of positioning pressure. For a stock perpetual, the usefulness of that signal would depend on the final contract terms, including which price represents the stock while its regular session is closed and whether an evening premium is included. The same stock could therefore have different overnight holding costs on different venues.

Leverage remains in the single digits

The general margin requirement for security futures is 15% of a position’s current market value, equivalent to a maximum of roughly 6.7 times the collateral. That is well below the leverage available on many offshore crypto-perpetual venues.

Kalshi’s proposal sets a minimum margin requirement of 15.5%, or about 6.5 times leverage. Exchanges and intermediaries could require more, and offsetting positions could qualify for different treatment.

A hypothetical position at the 15% minimum, before funding and fees, would look like this:

• Contract value: $10,000
• Margin posted: $1,500
• Contract price movement against the position: 5%
• Loss: $500, or about one-third of the margin

Lower leverage does not eliminate the risks associated with individual stocks. Earnings days can produce moves of that size, while funding and fees would add to the cost. A margin call or forced liquidation could occur well before all collateral is lost, leaving less room than the headline leverage multiple might suggest.

Coinbase would have two types of stock perpetuals

Coinbase already offers stock perpetuals, but its derivatives page identifies that product as a Coinbase Bermuda offering for eligible jurisdictions. The November 3 statement concerns U.S. exchanges registered with both regulators, the structure under which Coinbase Derivatives filed its proposal.

The offshore product and a potential U.S. listing share the Coinbase brand but would operate through different entities, rules and customer-eligibility requirements. The entity named in an account agreement would therefore be more important than the logo displayed in the application.

Hyperliquid’s U.S. route is separate

The same distinction applies to Hyperliquid. Its proposed U.S. route depends on approved accounts at a regulated intermediary, while ICE’s planned U.S. market for Hyperliquid perpetuals was reported as pending approval. The CFTC statement named neither plan and did not create new access for U.S. customers to markets already operating on Hyperliquid.

A broker account replaces the exchange wallet

On an offshore crypto venue, collateral is held under the venue’s terms and the laws of its home jurisdiction. In the U.S. market, security-futures account rules allow an intermediary to carry positions in either a futures account or a securities account.

Collateral in a futures account is subject to the segregation requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act. A securities account instead follows customer-protection rules under securities law. The broker must tell the customer which structure applies.

For traders who experienced offshore exchange failures, that disclosure addresses a central custody question: which rules govern the money if the firm becomes insolvent.

SIFMA raises concerns about overnight trading

The day before the announcement, SIFMA asked regulators to allow additional review of equity perpetuals. The securities-industry association cited trading during less-liquid periods, the risk of cross-market manipulation, possible effects on the underlying stocks and unresolved questions about how the products should be classified. Its position was set out in a letter to regulators.

Those concerns focus on the same evening hours that crypto traders may consider a central feature of the products. A thin market after the close could move a perpetual without a corresponding move in the stock. Regulators and market operators would also need surveillance capable of linking activity across markets run by different entities. SIFMA’s letter stated the industry’s concerns while leaving the approval in place.

Confirmation that the contracts are live would require a venue listing notice identifying specific stocks, a launch date and final funding terms. Until such a notice appears, the September proposals remain the clearest guide to how a crypto-style perpetual could operate under U.S. stock-market rules. The overnight session identified by SIFMA remains the part of the design requiring the most scrutiny.