Coinbase, Kalshi and Kraken Parent Back CFTC in Stock Perpetuals Fight

Six of the most prominent names in crypto and proprietary trading asked a federal judge on November 9 for permission to file a brief supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as the agency defends its approval of perpetual futures on single stocks. Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken's parent Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading and the venture firm Paradigm all signed the request, which was shared by Coinbase's legal representative, Molly Abraham.

Their intervention lands at an awkward moment. Days earlier, the court found that the CFTC likely "exceeded its statutory authority" by allowing these contracts to trade as security futures. The six firms are, in effect, joining a fight in which the presiding judge has already signaled sympathy for the other side.

Who is suing, and why?

The Capital Markets Alliance Association (CMAA), a newly formed trade group whose members include Cboe and Citadel Securities, sued to undo the CFTC's approval of single-stock perpetual futures. The approval, issued last week, would have allowed the products to trade on US-regulated exchanges for the first time.

The CMAA's core argument is definitional. A contract with no expiration date, the group contends, is not a futures contract at all. It is a security-based swap, which would place it primarily under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and subject it to stricter limits on retail trading. That jurisdictional distinction carries real operational weight: it determines which rulebook, which registrant categories and which customer-access regimes govern the product.

What do Coinbase and its allies argue?

The six firms take the opposite view: nothing in US futures law requires a security future to expire. On their reading, the perpetual contracts fit within the existing framework of shared CFTC and SEC oversight, the dual-jurisdiction structure that already governs security futures products.

Their commercial interest is not incidental. Coinbase, Kalshi and Payward operate venues and brokerage infrastructure that could list or distribute such contracts, while DRW and Jump are natural liquidity providers. If the court reclassifies stock perpetuals as swaps, exchange-listed access narrows and the retail distribution channel the CFTC approval opened could close before it matures.

A caveat belongs here. The firms filed a motion for permission to file; the court has not granted it, and an amicus brief is argument, not evidence. The judge's preliminary comments suggest the definitional question remains open and contested.

Where does Judge Caproni stand?

Judge Valerie Caproni has, so far, leaned toward the trade group. She said the contracts look more like swaps than futures. She nonetheless declined to halt trading, finding that the CMAA had not demonstrated the urgent and lasting harm required for immediate relief.

That combination defines the current market state. Single-stock perpetual futures remain live on US-regulated exchanges, but under a legal cloud that the plaintiffs intend to remove. The CMAA's next filing is due November 10, the next procedural milestone in a case that could settle the product's entire US market structure.

The six-firm coalition is betting that a jurisdictional argument can survive a judge's initial skepticism. Whether that bet pays off should become clearer after the November 10 filing and the court's response to the proposed brief.

In plain terms: the products trade today, their legality is unproven, and the fight over their future is just beginning.