Ondo Calls on SEC and CFTC to Move US Stock Perpetuals Onshore

Ondo Finance has asked US regulators to allow onshore perpetual futures tied to individual stocks, arguing that the existing security futures framework already covers the products—without the need for new rulemaking. The request was made in three comment letters dated Aug. 24 to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

In its filings, Ondo said perpetual contracts can be structured to track the underlying equity price using mechanisms that resemble expiration and funding logic in traditional futures markets. The firm also pointed to its offshore activity, stating that a stablecoin-settled affiliate platform has accumulated $8 billion in cumulative trading volume for perpetual stock futures by Aug. 14, about six weeks after launch.

Key takeaways

• Ondo argues US “security futures” definitions do not require fixed expiration dates, supporting perpetual stock futures under current frameworks.
• The firm claims scheduled funding payments can keep perpetual contracts aligned with the price of underlying stocks, functioning similarly to expiration dynamics.
• Ondo says many offshore-targeted equities are primarily traded on US exchanges, so regulators should focus on bringing that activity onshore.
• Ondo cites its own offshore stablecoin-settled perpetual offerings as proof the product design can operate at scale, reporting $8 billion cumulative trading volume by Aug. 14.
• The push arrives as the SEC and CFTC coordinate more closely and the SEC proposes updates to infrastructure rules affecting tokenized securities.

Ondo’s case: perpetuals fit existing security futures definitions

Ondo’s central position is that a perpetual structure does not automatically fall outside the statutory definition of a security futures product. In one of its product-classification comment letters, the company said nothing in the “statutory definition of a security futures product requires a fixed expiration date,” framing perpetual contracts as compatible with existing legal categories.

Beyond legal interpretation, Ondo addressed the operational question regulators typically ask with perpetual products: how to maintain price alignment over time. The firm argued that scheduled funding payments can serve the same job as expiration in conventional futures, by incentivizing the perpetual contract price to stay close to the reference stock price.

The letters also tie the discussion to modern market mechanics. Ondo pointed to the need to account for contemporary margining approaches and for onchain market data—elements that are common to blockchain-based derivatives markets but may not have been explicitly contemplated when earlier derivatives rules were written.

Offshore track record and why “onshoring” matters

To strengthen its request, Ondo pointed to an existing offshore offering. According to the company, its Panama-based affiliate already provides stablecoin-settled perpetual futures on individual US-listed stocks outside the United States. Ondo said the platform recorded $8 billion in cumulative trading volume as of Aug. 14, roughly six weeks after launch.

Ondo’s letters also emphasized that “bringing that activity back to the U.S.” should not be an open question because many of the underlying stocks are principally traded on US exchanges. The company suggested that both the SEC and CFTC should actively pursue a pathway for similar products to operate legally within US borders.

For investors and traders, the underlying issue is regulatory clarity. When derivatives tied to familiar reference assets migrate offshore, liquidity and price discovery may become harder to monitor under US oversight. Ondo’s push effectively argues that regulators can capture that activity rather than leaving it to platforms operating from outside the country’s regulatory perimeter.

Regulators reassess crypto and tokenized securities rules

Ondo’s proposal comes as the SEC and CFTC revisit how older market frameworks apply to blockchain-native products, including perpetual futures and tokenized securities. This year has also featured efforts to harmonize overlapping jurisdictions. The SEC and CFTC signed a memorandum of understanding in March aimed at coordinating oversight where authority overlaps.

Separately, the SEC has moved to update parts of its transfer agent framework, proposing changes to reflect growing demand for blockchain-native recordkeeping and tokenized securities. The proposal explicitly highlights how rules designed for legacy infrastructure may no longer match the operational realities of modern token-based markets.

In parallel, public comments by US political figures have kept attention on bringing popular onchain derivative venues closer to US access. In August, President Donald Trump said CFTC Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States “in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” Hyperliquid is widely associated with onchain perpetual futures, though neither the CFTC nor Hyperliquid has provided details in public materials about how that access would be handled.

While Ondo’s filings focus on US stock-linked perpetual futures, the broader takeaway for market participants is that regulators are not only observing crypto markets—they are actively adjusting the way they interpret and administer rules that touch tokenized assets and derivatives.

Ondo’s broader position in tokenized real-world assets

Ondo’s derivatives push is also consistent with its standing in the tokenized real-world assets (RWA) space. According to RWA.xyz data cited by the company, Ondo ranks fourth among tokenized RWA managers by distributed value, at about $2.6 billion as of Wednesday.

This context matters because tokenized RWA infrastructure often relies on interactions across multiple parts of the market: trading, custody/recordkeeping, and derivatives or hedging tools. A regulatory pathway for perpetual stock futures could strengthen the use cases for tokenized assets and related financial products, particularly if it allows US market participants to hedge or express views using familiar reference instruments with clearer oversight.

At the same time, uncertainty remains about how regulators will view the specific mechanics of perpetual contracts—especially funding, margining, and the mapping of onchain data flows to existing market surveillance and compliance expectations. Ondo’s letters make a legal and structural argument, but the practical outcome will depend on how the SEC and CFTC respond during the rulemaking and enforcement interpretive process.

For readers tracking the next steps, the most important signal will be whether the SEC and CFTC treat Ondo’s position as sufficient for market access under current security futures rules—or whether they push for additional guidance to define acceptable perpetual contract structures tied to US-listed equities.