Arthur Hayes Says Coinbase’s US Stock Perps Move Signals Market Shift

Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, says he is “flattered” by Coinbase’s decision to support the CFTC in a US court fight involving stock-linked perpetual futures. The dispute centers on whether perpetual contracts tied to individual stocks should be regulated as security-based swaps—an approach that could impose tighter limits on retail participation.

In the case brought by the Capital Markets Alliance Association (CMAA), Coinbase and five other firms filed a brief opposing CMAA’s effort to block trading. The court accepted that submission on Tuesday. Hayes, who previously led BitMEX during the launch of the exchange’s first Bitcoin perpetual swap in 2016, drew a pointed parallel between the skepticism around crypto derivatives a decade ago and the current mainstream push into stock perpetuals.

Key takeaways

• Coinbase joined five other companies in a Monday brief opposing CMAA’s request to temporarily halt stock-linked perpetual trading.
• Hayes framed the dispute as a long arc from early regulatory pushback against perpetual swaps to today’s courtroom defense by a major regulated exchange.
• CMAA argues the contracts should be treated as security-based swaps, potentially bringing stricter rules for retail traders.
• The SEC reportedly weighed in with a proposed court brief, while indicating it is still reviewing how exchanges list these contracts and how they should be classified.
• A key legal issue is whether the “no fixed expiry” structure of perpetuals undermines arguments that they fit cleanly within the “futures” framework.

Hayes highlights the regulatory path from crypto to stock markets

Hayes’ comments were directed at Coinbase’s role in the federal case. He said he was “flattered” that a large US exchange is now in court defending the right to offer perpetual contracts linked to US stocks. Hayes recalled the early days of perpetual swaps at BitMEX in 2016, when, he said, Washington’s initial reaction was less favorable. The broader point in his remarks was that perpetual-style derivatives—now common in crypto—are being tested again, this time inside a traditional market structure.

BitMEX’s original Bitcoin perpetual swap was built to let traders take leveraged positions without a fixed expiration date. That product shape helped popularize perpetual swaps across the industry, making the current debate about stock perpetuals feel like a familiar template, only with new legal labels.

Why CMAA wants a halt to stock perpetuals

The CMAA lawsuit challenges the regulatory basis for allowing stock perpetuals. According to the alliance, these products should be treated as security-based swaps, not as futures. The distinction matters because security-based swaps generally fall under a different regulatory framework, with more restrictive rules for retail activity.

In support of its position, CMAA pointed to trading activity it says began shortly after launch for Kalshi’s stock perpetuals. The filing referenced reported 24-hour notional trading volume of about $375 million, portraying it as evidence that the products are drawing business away from traditional stock markets.

CMAA also argued that the CFTC approved the contracts without adequately explaining its decision or resolving unresolved regulatory questions. In a Tuesday court filing, the group stated that the CFTC’s approval lacked sufficient justification and clarity for the framework CMAA says should apply.

Coinbase and co-defendants oppose an immediate trading blockade

Coinbase and five other firms submitted a brief on Monday asking the court not to block trading in the stock perpetual contracts tied to individual stocks. The court accepted the brief on Tuesday, keeping CMAA’s request from moving forward at least at that stage.

The article framing of the opposition is that CMAA has not established grounds for an emergency stop. While the filings address classification and regulatory authority, the immediate question before the court is whether there is a sufficient basis to pause trading while the case proceeds.

Hayes’ “imitation” line underscored a familiar industry narrative: perpetual structures first faced regulatory uncertainty in crypto, and now the same derivative mechanics are being tested against the standards used for securities and futures.

SEC review and the “no expiry” factor complicate classification

Beyond the CFTC-focused arguments, regulatory attention has spread to the SEC. The SEC reportedly submitted a proposed court brief on Monday opposing CMAA’s request to temporarily halt trading. The SEC’s stated posture was not a final determination on the substance of classification. Instead, the agency said it was reviewing how exchanges structure and list these contracts, and whether the products should be treated as security futures or as security-based swaps.

That classification question becomes more complex given the specific structure of perpetual contracts. Unlike traditional futures, perpetuals do not have a fixed expiration or delivery date. CMAA’s opponents argue that this design can still fit within an approved derivatives framework, while critics warn that perpetual mechanics may conflict with how “sale for future delivery” is typically understood.

Strategy adviser Wojciech Kaszycki, who advises BTCS SA, highlighted the practical legal tension around perpetuals’ lack of expiry. In comments provided to Cointelegraph, he said the concept of “sale for future delivery” is central to the argument set in these cases. He also warned that if the ruling goes against the CFTC, trading activity could migrate toward offshore and decentralized venues—suggesting that the outcome could influence where liquidity concentrates, even if the US market is constrained.

Judge Caproni denies a temporary restraining order

On Nov. 3, US District Judge Valerie Caproni denied CMAA’s request for a temporary restraining order. The denial was tied to CMAA’s ability to show likely irreparable harm at that stage. The judge also found CMAA was likely to succeed on its claim that the CFTC exceeded its authority—an important nuance. It means the court may see potential merit in the legal theory, but still stopped short of granting the emergency relief CMAA sought.

For market participants, the ruling signals that the case can move forward without an immediate pause in trading, even while the court acknowledges at least some likelihood in CMAA’s overarching argument about regulatory authority.

Readers should watch how the SEC’s classification review evolves and whether the court’s treatment of the CFTC’s authority expands beyond the emergency stage. The critical question remains whether stock perpetuals will be treated as futures-like derivatives under the CFTC’s framework or pushed into the security-based swap lane—where retail access and product rules could change materially.