Perpetual Futures Reach US Markets, and the Courts Push Back

The CFTC approved Bitcoin perpetual futures in May 2026 — the first such contracts ever cleared for trading on a US-registered exchange — and now faces two lawsuits from incumbents trying to unwind that decision.

CME Group sued the CFTC in June 2026 over the Bitcoin perps approval. A second front opened after the agency cleared single-stock equity perpetual futures on November 3, 2026, when a group including Cboe and Citadel filed follow-on litigation in early November. The onshoring push has been led by CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig.

Why perpetual futures unsettle Wall Street

A traditional futures contract has a set end date; positions must settle or roll over when it arrives. A perpetual future never expires. Traders can hold indefinitely, and the market trades around the clock, nights and weekends included. Instead of an expiration date, perps use a funding-rate mechanism to keep the contract price anchored to the underlying asset.

Two features drive the anxiety. First, leverage: offshore venues offer 50x to 100x, meaning a small deposit controls a very large position — at 50x, a 2% adverse move can wipe out the entire stake. Second, the user base: perps are predominantly a retail product, unlike the institutional desks that dominate regulated futures markets.

The scale explains Washington's urgency. Offshore crypto perpetual trading volume hit $61.7 trillion in 2025, up 29% year over year, and nearly all of it ran outside US oversight. The administration's pitch is simple: if Americans trade these products anyway, the volume should flow through regulated domestic venues. In August 2026, President Trump discussed bringing platforms like Hyperliquid, a major decentralized perps venue, onshore.

What does the CME lawsuit actually argue?

CME's case turns on classification, not crypto. The exchange operator contends perpetuals should be treated as swaps, not futures, and that labeling them futures would unfairly harm competition among exchange operators.

The label carries real regulatory weight. Swaps and futures sit under different regimes, so the designation determines which rules apply and which venues can list the products. If CME prevails, the regulatory foundation for the CFTC's approvals could be thrown into question — and with it, the legal footing of every US-listed perp.

The Cboe and Citadel case adds a second track, targeting the November equity perps approval directly.

Lower leverage, but no expiration

Supporters point to guardrails: regulated US platforms may impose leverage caps of roughly 6x, a fraction of the 50x to 100x available offshore. Critics see the other side of that coin. Even at reduced leverage, perps combine round-the-clock trading, no expiration and a heavily retail user base — a mix that could unsettle the post-2008 risk-management playbook, which was built around products with defined lifespans and trading hours. Perps have neither.

Who wins if volume moves onshore?

The competitive stakes are broad. Firms such as Kalshi and Robinhood may see increased activity if volume shifts toward regulated US venues. Offshore platforms, including decentralized venues like Hyperliquid, face the first real prospect of regulated domestic competition for US users.

How much of that $61.7 trillion in offshore activity actually migrates will depend on whether traders accept lower leverage in exchange for regulatory protection — a trade-off no one has tested at scale in the US.

The near-term variable is the courts. Two parallel cases — CME's classification challenge and the Cboe-Citadel suit against the equity approval — will determine whether the CFTC's perps framework survives its first year intact.