CFTC Approves Stock Perpetual Futures for Trading on US Exchanges

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has taken a step that could reshape how US investors access derivatives exposure in equities: it says perpetual futures tied to individual stocks may now begin trading on regulated exchanges.

In a Tuesday statement, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said the contracts were deemed approved under CFTC Regulation 40.3 and can be offered on exchanges registered with both the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to trade “security futures products.” The practical implication is that traders may soon be able to use perpetual-style instruments—popular in crypto markets—to express views on stock prices without holding the underlying shares and without an expiration date.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC says single-stock perpetual futures are permitted under CFTC Regulation 40.3, opening the door for trading on exchanges also registered with the SEC.
• CFTC Chairman Michael Selig framed the move as a shift away from “offshore” venues toward contracts traded under US regulatory safeguards.
• Several companies have pursued CFTC approval for equity perpetual futures in recent months, building on the regulator’s earlier work in crypto perps.
• The agency’s broader approach to perpetual futures for crypto-linked products continues to face legal scrutiny in court.

From crypto-style perps to stock derivatives

Perpetual futures are derivatives that track the price of an underlying asset while avoiding a fixed maturity date. Traders can gain long or short exposure to an asset’s price movement without purchasing the underlying security. The format gained mainstream attention in cryptocurrency markets, where instruments commonly referred to as “perps” were popularized by crypto exchanges beginning in 2016.

Selig’s statement emphasized that bringing the product type into the US on regulated exchanges would give American participants an alternative to venues that operate outside US oversight. He argued that regulated listings reduce reliance on offshore, “often unregulated” platforms, positioning the development as both a market-access improvement and a regulatory modernization effort.

Regulatory pathway: how the CFTC greenlit trading

The CFTC did not name the specific exchanges expected to host the products, nor did it provide a start date for trading. Still, the regulator’s reasoning is clear about the intended market structure: these contracts must trade on venues registered with both the CFTC and SEC to offer “security futures products.”

According to the CFTC Chairman’s statement, the contracts were deemed approved under CFTC Regulation 40.3—an approval mechanism that, in practice, allows permitted offerings to proceed once the agency’s regulatory standards are satisfied for that category of product.

Recent filings and the momentum from crypto perps

The announcement arrives after an active period of filings aimed at extending perpetual futures into traditional equity markets. The same derivatives template previously helped drive regulatory attention around crypto-linked perps, including a sequence of CFTC actions that signaled the agency was willing to engage with the product design.

In September, filings included efforts by Coinbase and Kalshi, alongside Kraken parent Payward through its Bitnomial exchange, to seek approval for perpetual futures tied to individual US stocks. OG.com also joined the push soon after, proposing contracts that could trade around the clock on weekdays.

The latest equity-related decision also follows the CFTC’s earlier authorization work in the crypto space. Earlier coverage noted the CFTC’s May approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures contracts for Kalshi, as well as separate regulatory relief that allowed Coinbase to provide access to certain cryptocurrency perpetual futures listed on an affiliated foreign exchange. Taken together, the equities announcement suggests the regulator is continuing a broader project: building a consistent regulatory approach for perpetual contract structures across different underlying asset classes.

While the specific contract mechanics for stock-linked perps were not detailed in Tuesday’s statement, the approval framework matters for traders because it dictates where and under what oversight they can access these products. For market participants, US-listed venues generally imply tighter compliance obligations, including reporting and supervision standards associated with registered exchanges.

Legal tension: the CFTC’s perps approach still under debate

Even as the CFTC moves to enable new perpetual futures products, its stance has not gone unchallenged. The announcement came nearly three months after President Donald Trump said the CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid—a decentralized crypto exchange known for perpetual futures trading—into the US “in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” At the time of those remarks, neither the CFTC nor Hyperliquid had announced a formal plan for a US launch.

More concretely, legal opposition has emerged from established derivatives market participants. In June, CME Group’s Chicago Mercantile Exchange sued the CFTC over its approval of cryptocurrency perpetual futures. CME’s argument, as previously reported, was that such contracts should be regulated as swaps rather than futures—an important distinction because swaps can be subject to different requirements, including potentially stricter reporting, margin, and registration rules.

The CFTC later moved to dismiss CME’s lawsuit in September, arguing CME lacked standing because it had not demonstrated financial harm and that CME could list similar contracts itself.

That continuing dispute underscores an asymmetry investors should be aware of: even when the CFTC authorizes a product type, the classification questions—futures versus swaps—may remain contested in court. For traders, the key watch item is whether future legal outcomes affect market design or restrict certain contract offerings, particularly if regulators or courts revisit how perpetual contracts fit within existing US derivatives frameworks.

Next, traders and issuers will likely focus on two practical questions: which registered exchange venues will list these stock-linked perpetual futures, and how the CFTC’s treatment of perpetual contracts evolves amid ongoing litigation over the product’s regulatory classification. If more approvals follow—or if courts narrow the regulator’s flexibility—market access could change quickly.