Two players in the on-chain derivatives world want the CFTC to stop treating perpetual contracts like they’re exotic creatures and start treating them like what they are: swaps with a slightly different engine under the hood. The Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) and trade[XYZ] submitted a joint comment letter on August 24, 2026, asking regulators to create a unified framework that would greenlight energy perpetual contracts, stablecoin integration, and on-chain infrastructure in the US market.
The argument is straightforward. If the CFTC already approved the first US-listed perpetual contract back in May, why should the regulatory treatment change depending on whether the underlying asset is Bitcoin or a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude?
The case for economic structure over asset-specific rules
The comment letter, addressed to both the SEC and CFTC, makes one central pitch: regulate perpetual contracts based on their economic structure, not on the specific asset they reference. A perp is a perp, whether it tracks BTC or Brent crude. The funding rate mechanism, the margin requirements, the settlement logic. These are structural features that don’t fundamentally change when you swap out the underlying.
