Kalshi seeks CFTC approval for stock perpetuals
Kalshi is trying to push one of crypto’s most controversial market structures into U.S. equities: perpetual-style futures tied to stocks and ETFs. The filings are real, the competition is already crowded, and regulators now have to decide whether a crypto-native leverage product belongs anywhere near mainstream securities.
- Filed September 18
- Still pending CFTC approval
- Nearly 24/5 trading schedule
- 15.50% minimum customer margin
- Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial filed the same day
Kalshi’s proposal would list perpetual futures on U.S. stocks and ETFs with cash settlement, a standard contract size of 100 shares, and a minimum customer margin of 15.50%. The contracts would trade from 6:00 p.m. ET Sunday through 5:00 p.m. ET Friday, with a daily maintenance window from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.
Perpetual futures are futures contracts with no preset expiration date. Instead of expiring on a fixed schedule like traditional futures, they use funding payments to keep the contract price close to the underlying asset. That structure is familiar in offshore crypto markets. In regulated U.S. equity markets, it is a very different animal.
Kalshi’s filing says the contracts “would have no preset expiration date” and “would be treated as security futures products.” That last part matters. Once stocks and ETFs are the underliers, this is no longer just a commodities problem. It becomes a securities-and-commodities overlap, which is why both the SEC and CFTC are in the picture.
The SEC acknowledged Kalshi’s Form 1-N registration on September 8, while the CFTC’s product records still showed the equity perpetual submissions as “Approval Pending (45)” on September 20. That status is not approval. It is a waiting room label, and nobody should confuse a filing for a live market.
Kalshi’s proposed underliers include AAPL, TSLA, MSFT, NVDA, AMZN, SPY and QQQ. The eligibility standards are aimed squarely at the biggest names: estimated deliverable supply above 20 million shares, market capitalization of at least $100 billion, average daily transaction value of at least $450 million over the prior six months, or $1 billion over the prior month if the stock has been listed for less than six months, plus a public float of at least 7 million shares.
That is Kalshi saying, in effect, “we’re not trying to turn penny stocks into a derivatives circus.” Sensible. Also not exactly a safety guarantee. Deep liquidity helps, but leverage still does what leverage does: it magnifies mistakes fast.
The filing also includes a 0.002% deadband and a maximum funding magnitude of 2.00%. A deadband is a tiny price range where small differences do not trigger a funding adjustment. Funding payments are the periodic transfers between longs and shorts that help keep a perpetual contract aligned with the underlying asset. In plain English: if the contract drifts too far, the market nudges it back. If traders get too excited, the funding bill arrives with a baseball bat.
Kalshi says the market would be cleared through Kalshi Klear. Public comments are due 21 days after publication in the Federal Register. The rule text also says the effective date would be November 2, 2026, or such later date, which leaves plenty of time for regulators to slow this down, ask hard questions, or shut the door entirely.
This is not Kalshi’s first run at a perpetual product. The CFTC approved its Bitcoin perpetual, BTCPERP, on May 29, and the product launched in early June. That approval matters because it shows regulators are willing to tolerate perpetual-style design in at least one segment of the market.
But Bitcoin is not Apple. A crypto-native derivative and a securities-linked derivative are not the same regulatory beast. Bitcoin perpetuals live in a world of spot-market fragmentation, 24/7 trading culture, and a more established crypto derivatives playbook. Stocks and ETFs bring securities law, disclosure rules, market-hour conventions, and a much tighter supervision framework.
That is why this filing is more than a novelty. It is a test of whether a structure that became famous in crypto can be transplanted into U.S. equity markets without turning into a legal and risk-management mess.
Kalshi is not the only one trying. Bitnomial and Coinbase Derivatives also filed stock-perpetual plans on September 18. This is now a race. Whoever gets approval first could help define how regulated U.S. venues handle perpetual-style equity trading from here on out.
Bitnomial’s pending CFTC records list AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, TSLA, AMZN, AVGO, MU, GOOGL and PLTR. Its structure is also aggressive: a 24/5 session from Sunday evening through Friday, funding calculated three times daily, a 100-share contract unit, and a minimum customer margin floor of 15.25%. The message is clear enough without the marketing fluff, this company wants to be part of the regulated perpetual market before the bigger players fully muscle in.
There is also a legal shadow hanging over the broader perpetual debate. The federal case Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. Selig was filed on June 18 and concerns the CFTC’s Bitcoin perpetual decision. The CFTC moved to dismiss on September 2, and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has set deadlines running through October, November and December. But that case does not decide Kalshi’s September 18 stock-perpetual applications. Same theme, different fight.
The CFTC has already signaled some caution. It said perpetual contract design “may not be suitable for all asset classes.” That is regulator-speak for a simple point: just because a contract works in one market does not mean it should be imported everywhere. Shocking, we know. A new wrapper does not magically sanitize a risky product.
And these products are risky. Margin floors like 15.50% and 15.25% can reduce leverage, but they do not erase the core problem. Traders can still get liquidated. Funding can still whipsaw positions. Volatility can still do what volatility does best: humble the overconfident and empty the overleveraged.
There is a legitimate pro-innovation argument here, though. If perpetuals are already a real market structure in crypto, bringing them onto a regulated U.S. venue could mean clearer rules, better clearing, and fewer offshore games played in the dark. That is the optimistic case, and it is not nonsense.
Perpetual futures come onshore, and the skeptical case is just as strong. If the main appeal of a product is more leverage, more churn, and more ways to speculate without sleep, then a regulatory stamp does not automatically make it wise or socially useful. It may just make the casino look more respectable. Same roulette wheel, nicer carpet.
Key questions and takeaways
-
What is Kalshi trying to launch?
Kalshi wants to list perpetual-style futures tied to U.S. stocks and ETFs. These contracts would have no preset expiration date and would use funding payments to stay close to the underlying asset. -
Is this approved yet?
No. As of September 20, Kalshi’s equity perpetual submissions were still marked “Approval Pending (45)” in CFTC records. -
Why do both the SEC and CFTC matter?
Because the underliers are securities such as stocks and ETFs. That pulls the SEC into the process alongside the CFTC, not just the usual futures rulebook. -
Which names are being targeted?
Kalshi’s proposed underliers include AAPL, TSLA, MSFT, NVDA, AMZN, SPY and QQQ. The listing standards are aimed at mega-cap, highly liquid assets. -
Did Kalshi already get a perpetual product approved?
Yes. The CFTC approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual, BTCPERP, on May 29, and it launched in early June. -
Are other firms trying the same thing?
Yes. Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial both filed competing stock-perpetual plans on September 18, turning this into a direct race among regulated venues. -
Does the CME lawsuit decide these stock products?
No. Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. Selig is about the Bitcoin perpetual decision, not Kalshi’s September 18 stock-perpetual applications. -
Do margin requirements make these products safe?
Not really. Higher margin can reduce leverage, but it does not remove liquidation risk, funding risk, or the basic volatility that makes perpetuals dangerous in the first place.
What happens next will say a lot about how far U.S. regulators are willing to go in importing crypto-native market structures into mainstream finance. If these products get approved, it will signal a willingness to let perpetual-style leverage into stocks and ETFs under strict supervision. If they get blocked, regulators will be drawing a line and saying some ideas are better left where they started. Either way, the fight is now real, and this time the paperwork is the battleground.
Further reading
One more angle on the regulatory tug-of-war around prediction markets and perpetual-style products.
