The Blockchain Association is calling for joint SEC and CFTC framework to bring equity perpetual futures, or “equity perps, ” onto regulated U.S. rails.
- What’s being pushed: a coordinated SEC-CFTC framework
- What it would cover: equity perpetual futures
- Why it matters: clearer rules could keep trading onshore
- The catch: perps are leverage-heavy and can get ugly fast
That headline may sound technical, but the issue is simple. A new derivatives product is knocking on Washington’s door, and the U.S. regulatory split is making the answer messy. Perpetual futures, or perps, are contracts with no expiration date. They usually rely on a funding rate, periodic payments between long and short traders, to keep the contract price close to the underlying asset’s cash price.
In crypto, perps are already a core part of market structure. In equities, they get a lot more complicated. Stocks already sit under a dense web of securities rules, derivatives rules, market surveillance expectations, and investor-protection requirements. Add a perpetual contract on top, and you get a product that lands squarely in the overlap zone between the SEC and the CFTC.
That overlap is the real story. The Securities and Exchange Commission generally oversees securities, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission generally oversees derivatives and commodities markets. Equity perps combine a derivatives structure with exposure tied to equities, which raises obvious questions: Who supervises the venue? Who sets margin and liquidation rules? Who handles manipulation surveillance? And can retail traders touch it, or is that a disaster waiting to happen?
The Blockchain Association’s push for a joint framework makes sense from an industry standpoint. If a product is left in regulatory limbo, it tends to migrate to offshore venues where oversight is weaker and rules are looser. Markets do not politely vanish because Washington frowns at them. They just find a different jurisdiction and a nicer VPN.
That is why “bring it onshore” matters. A U.S. framework can mean clearer disclosure, better surveillance, and more consistent risk controls than the usual offshore free-for-all. It can also create a path for legitimate firms to operate inside the law instead of pretending jurisdictional ambiguity is a business model.
But let’s not romanticize this. More regulation does not automatically make a product safe. Perps are still perps. They are built for leverage, and leverage is where a lot of traders discover they were not investing so much as speed-running financial humiliation. If margin requirements are too loose, liquidations can cascade. If liquidity is thin, price moves can get ugly. If market surveillance is weak, manipulation is not some theoretical nuisance. It becomes part of the business plan.
Equity perps also raise a question that crypto traders sometimes skip past too quickly: should this product exist at all for retail users? The answer is not a clean yes or no. There is a legitimate case for giving sophisticated market participants more tools. There is also a very good case for keeping the average small account far away from a product that can amplify losses as efficiently as it amplifies gains.
The broader regulatory backdrop suggests the agencies are at least paying attention. The CFTC said on April 21, 2025, in Release Number 9069-25, that its divisions had issued a request for comment on perpetual contracts in derivatives markets. According to the CFTC, the request asks about the uses, benefits, risks, market integrity issues, customer protection concerns, clearing, and risk management. That is not a regulator waving the product away. It is a regulator trying to figure out whether the thing can be supervised without blowing a hole in the wall.
Research from TD Securities also helps explain why perps have become such a persistent fixture in crypto markets. TD Securities describes perpetual futures as contracts that never expire and use a funding-rate mechanism to keep the contract price aligned with the spot market. In plain English: they are designed to track the underlying asset without a fixed end date, which makes them attractive for hedging and speculation alike.
That same design is exactly why they can be dangerous. Perpetuals can be efficient, liquid, and useful. They can also become unstable when leverage gets too aggressive or when too much trading is packed into too little liquidity. Crypto markets already know this pain. Equities would add a more demanding legal and market-structure framework, which is part of why this proposal would not be a simple copy-and-paste job from digital assets into stock markets.
There is also a wider shift worth watching. On March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC jointly issued an interpretive release on crypto asset classification and securities analysis, according to Pillsbury’s summary of the release. That does not authorize equity perps, and it does not settle the jurisdictional fight. But it does show the agencies moving closer to a more coordinated way of thinking about crypto market structure instead of acting like every new product is a fresh excuse for bureaucratic trench warfare.
That coordination matters because equity perps would not sit neatly inside one agency’s lane. They would likely touch securities law, derivatives law, margin rules, trading venue oversight, and anti-manipulation enforcement. If the framework ever becomes real, the details will matter more than the label. The difference between a credible market and a clown car with a compliance badge will come down to who regulates what, how access is controlled, and whether the plumbing is built for actual risk.
The case for an onshore framework is easy to understand. Better oversight is better than no oversight. Clear rules are better than shrugging and hoping the market self-organizes into virtue. But the darker side deserves equal airtime: if regulators get this wrong, they could import an offshore-style leverage machine into the U.S. and hand it a glossy wrapper. That would not be innovation. That would be a very expensive mistake with patriotic branding.
Key questions and takeaways
-
What are equity perps?
They are perpetual futures contracts linked to equities. Like other perps, they have no expiration date and use a funding mechanism to keep prices near the underlying asset. -
Why is the Blockchain Association pushing for a joint SEC-CFTC framework?
The goal is to create a clearer U.S. path for trading equity perps instead of leaving the product stuck in regulatory gray area or pushed offshore. -
Why do both the SEC and CFTC matter here?
Equity perps sit at the intersection of securities and derivatives law, so both agencies could have a role in defining oversight, trading rules, and market protections. -
Are perpetual futures risky?
Yes. They can be useful and liquid, but leverage, liquidation cascades, thin liquidity, and manipulation risks make them dangerous if controls are weak. -
Is there already regulatory interest in perpetual contracts?
Yes. The CFTC issued a request for comment on perpetual contracts in April 2025, showing that regulators are actively examining the product structure. -
Should these products exist for retail traders?
Maybe, but only with serious guardrails. Access alone is not a virtue if the product is basically a leverage trap with better branding.
The real decision here is not whether markets want perpetuals. Markets already want what they want. The question is whether the U.S. wants to regulate that demand onshore, or keep pretending that uncertainty is a strategy.
Further reading
For the regulatory and market-structure angle behind perpetuals, these sources add useful context.
- CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts
- Federal Register
- CFTC Establishes Framework for Crypto Asset Futures
- CFTC’s Mersinger Predicts U.S. Crypto Perpetual Futures
- Kraken Launches CFTC-Regulated U.S. Perpetual Futures for Eligible Traders
- CFTC Chair Michael Selig Defends US Approval of Crypto Perpetual Futures
