Coinbase, Kalshi, and four additional corporations have petitioned a federal court to permit an amicus brief that defends the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s power to authorize perpetual futures linked to individual U.S. equities. This legal filing arises during a lawsuit that will determine whether these crypto-inspired derivatives stay accessible on compliant U.S. trading platforms or encounter stricter limitations.
The coalition—comprising Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken parent Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading, and Paradigm—contends that single-stock perpetual futures meet the criteria for security futures under current U.S. statutes, placing them under the dual supervision of both the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Their intended brief backs the CFTC in opposition to a challenge brought by the Capital Markets Alliance Association (CMAA), a trade organization whose participants include Cboe and Citadel Securities.
Why Stock Perps Are Under Fire
On November 3, 2026, the CFTC made public that single-stock perpetual futures—frequently termed stock perps—were cleared to commence trading on regulated U.S. platforms for the initial time. Proposals from KalshiEX, Coinbase Derivatives, and Bitnomial (associated with Payward) had been delivered during mid-September. Once the regulatory body’s 45-day assessment window concluded without an objection on November 2, the financial instruments achieved official approval.
In contrast to standard futures contracts, perpetual agreements lack a designated expiration date. Participants maintain their positions indefinitely, while periodic funding rate adjustments keep the contract valuation closely aligned with the underlying equity. This design, which gained prominence within digital asset markets, enables ongoing speculation on specific stocks without requiring direct ownership of the shares.
The CMAA initiated legal action against the CFTC shortly following the authorization, asserting that the absence of a set expiration implies the contracts ought to be categorized as security-based swaps. Such instruments fall primarily under SEC jurisdiction and are subject to heavier restrictions regarding retail investor participation. The association maintains that the CFTC overstepped its statutory mandate by designating the products as security futures.
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni subsequently determined that the CMAA demonstrated a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of that specific argument, noting that the perpetual agreements “appear to satisfy the definition of a swap.” Nevertheless, she rejected a request for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate immediate irreparable injury. Consequently, trading has persisted while the litigation moves forward.
Crypto Firms Push Back on Regulatory Boundaries
Within their submitted amicus brief, the six corporations assert that a fixed expiration date is unnecessary for a contract to qualify as a security future under the Commodity Exchange Act alongside the statutory framework enacted by Congress in 2000. They maintain that the instruments fit naturally within the current shared regulatory architecture rather than migrating completely to the SEC’s swap framework.
Coinbase and Kalshi maintain direct business stakes, as each has pursued the listing of equity perps. For digital-asset-focused platforms, these contracts serve as a connection point between cryptocurrency trading methods and conventional equities. Proponents suggest that accessible, regulated onshore trading lowers the motivation for U.S. investors to seek out offshore platforms. Conversely, detractors from traditional financial sectors raise concerns surrounding market composition, leverage, and potential hazards for retail participants.
This conflict accentuates a wider regulatory friction. Perpetual futures originated within the cryptocurrency sector and evolved into a primary vehicle for leveraged trading across the globe. Introducing this identical mechanism to U.S. equities tests whether current commodity and securities regulations can properly accommodate financial products devoid of expiration dates. A judicial decision reclassifying them as security-based swaps could restrict retail access and hinder the domestic expansion of these markets.
What’s Next for the Case
The CMAA is slated to submit its response to the CFTC’s opposition regarding a preliminary injunction. The motion by the six corporations to file their amicus brief remains undecided. Regardless of the final result, this litigation will influence how U.S. regulatory bodies oversee hybrid financial products that combine digital asset structures with traditional underlying assets.
At present, stock perps continue to be accessible across authorized platforms. Yet, the legal battle emphasizes that definitive regulatory certainty surrounding perpetual contracts remains unresolved. Cryptocurrency enterprises are banking on the validity of the CFTC’s stance, whereas conventional market participants argue against it. The eventual judicial ruling will dictate which perspective ultimately succeeds.
Written by
Yuki Yamamoto
