The Hyperliquid Policy Center is urging the SEC and CFTC to create a single regulatory framework for perpetual contracts, as HIP-3 market volume surpasses $480 billion and legal pressure mounts from major exchanges.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), a lobbying group connected to the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, is calling on U.S. regulators to end their turf war over perpetual contracts. In a formal letter sent to both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the group argues that the current split in oversight-based on the type of underlying asset-creates unnecessary complexity and legal risk for exchanges and market participants.
Regulatory Turf Battle
Under the existing U.S. regulatory structure, perpetual contracts referencing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are often treated differently from those tied to equities or commodities. The HPC contends that this approach is outdated, especially as new products like HIP-3 perpetuals allow exposure to a wide range of assets, including Ethereum, oil, gold, currencies, stock indexes, and ETFs. The group is urging regulators to harmonize rules based on the economic structure of the contracts themselves, rather than the underlying asset, citing the joint SEC-CFTC oversight of security futures as a workable precedent. Without a unified framework, the HPC warns that jurisdictional disputes could escalate into costly litigation, undermining market stability and innovation.
CME Lawsuit and Market Impact
The push for regulatory clarity comes as legal tensions intensify. CME Group, one of the largest U.S. derivatives exchanges, has filed a lawsuit against the CFTC after the agency approved perpetual futures trading for Coinbase and Kalshi. CME and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) have both raised concerns that platforms like Hyperliquid could be used to manipulate prices and have argued that such platforms should be required to register with the CFTC. According to the HPC, Hyperliquid's HIP-3 markets have processed over $480 billion in trading volume since their launch ten months ago, with open interest now around $4 billion. Across all products, Hyperliquid reported nearly $3 trillion in notional trading volume in 2025 and more than $1.5 trillion so far in 2026.
Political Endorsement and Token Reaction
The regulatory debate has been further complicated by political developments. On August 20, former President Donald Trump publicly endorsed Hyperliquid, stating that the CFTC was working to bring the platform to the U.S. in a "fully compliant and legal fashion." Following this statement, Hyperliquid's native token, HYPE, surged approximately 40%, according to The Block's price data. The timing of the HPC's letter coincides with both heightened regulatory scrutiny and increased market activity for Hyperliquid, reflecting the growing stakes for exchanges and token holders alike.
Broader Market Context
The debate over perpetual contract regulation is unfolding as U.S. companies look for new ways to expand their crypto-related business models. For example, Metaplanet's recent move to acquire a major stake in Super League, aiming to launch a U.S.-listed Bitcoin treasury company, highlights how regulatory clarity can shape strategic decisions for firms operating at the intersection of traditional finance and digital assets. More details on this trend can be found in EgonCoin's coverage of Metaplanet's U.S. Bitcoin treasury plans.
As of August 2026, Hyperliquid's HIP-3 markets have surpassed $480 billion in cumulative trading volume, with open interest at $4 billion, according to figures cited by the Hyperliquid Policy Center. The platform's total notional trading volume across all products reached nearly $3 trillion in 2025 and has already exceeded $1.5 trillion in the first half of 2026. HYPE, the platform's native token, has gained about 40% since August 20, based on data from The Block.
Perpetual contracts, or "perps," are a type of derivative that allows traders to gain leveraged exposure to an asset without an expiration date. Unlike traditional futures, perps rely on funding rates to keep prices in line with the underlying asset. In the U.S., the regulatory status of perps remains unsettled, with the SEC and CFTC often disagreeing over which agency should oversee specific products. This lack of clarity can create operational and legal uncertainty for exchanges, traders, and developers, especially as new contract structures blur the lines between asset classes. A unified regulatory approach could reduce these risks, but would require significant coordination between agencies that have historically competed for jurisdiction.
