Hyperliquid Policy Center Responds To ICE, CME’s Regulatory Pressure Push

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-05-15Last updated on 2026-05-15

Abstract

Hyperliquid's policy center has responded to a regulatory push by major traditional exchanges CME and ICE, who are lobbying the CFTC to require the decentralized exchange to register. The exchanges expressed concerns that Hyperliquid's anonymous trading model and growing volume could allow market manipulation and affect price discovery in key industries like oil. Their primary demand is for Hyperliquid to register with the CFTC, which would mandate customer identification and trade surveillance. The Hyperliquid Policy Center, led by CEO Jake Chervinsky, publicly countered these claims as "unfounded." It argued that Hyperliquid's fully on-chain, real-time transaction record offers greater transparency than traditional venues, creating an "anti-manipulation shield" and providing clear data for regulators. The policy center also highlighted benefits like 24/7 trading, which reduces price gaps seen in traditional markets. While acknowledging that U.S. law isn't yet tailored for on-chain derivatives, the group pledged to continue engaging with policymakers. Some reports suggest CME's lobbying may be self-interested, coinciding with its own plans to expand 24/7 crypto trading products.

The Washington, D.C.-based policy team for decentralized exchange Hyperliquid (HYPE) has moved quickly to address a new regulatory pressure campaign described in a Friday report by Bloomberg.

CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) are reportedly lobbying the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and US lawmakers to push for federal oversight of the platform, arguing that its current operating environment could be vulnerable to issues such as market manipulation and sanctions evasion.

CME And ICE Urge Hyperliquid CFTC Registration

The exchanges’ concerns, as framed in the reporting, center on how Hyperliquid trades and where those trades take place. CME and ICE reportedly worry that the platform’s growing trading volumes in crypto and commodity-linked markets could begin to affect price discovery in industries where benchmarks matter, including oil.

They argue that anonymous trading settings may allow actors with private information—or participants tied to insider or state-linked influence—to distort prices that are used across markets.

CME and ICE’s stated ask, per Bloomberg, is straightforward: Hyperliquid should register with the CFTC. That registration would typically require the platform to adopt customer identification programs and implement trade surveillance measures.

However, those requirements appear to clash with Hyperliquid’s current approach, which relies on an anonymous trading model by design.

In response, the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), led by CEO Jake Chervisnky, pushed back publicly. On social media site X (formerly Twitter), the recently established organization affirmed the criticisms are “unfounded.”

The ‘Anti-Manipulation Shield’

The HPC argued that Hyperliquid offers a higher level of transparency than traditional venues precisely because it publishes a complete on-chain record of every transaction in real time.

In the policy center’s view, that level of visibility makes it a hostile environment for insider trading or price manipulation, while also giving regulators and law enforcement clearer material for surveillance, detection, and investigation.

The policy center also emphasized that Hyperliquid runs 24/7 trading, describing this as an efficiency upgrade rather than a disruption. Because trading is continuous, prices move even when conventional exchanges are closed, reducing the gaps and discontinuities that can occur between traditional market sessions.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center also said Bloomberg is broadly right about one key point: US law is not yet tailored to derivatives markets operating on public blockchains like Hyperliquid. The group said it plans to keep working with policymakers in Washington to bring on-chain markets inside the regulatory perimeter.

Other reporting, including a piece by The Defiant, has described the lobbying move as potentially self-interested. The report notes that CME is pursuing expansion of its own 24/7 crypto trading capabilities, including Bitcoin Volatility Futures scheduled to begin trading on June 1, and Nasdaq CME Crypto Index Futures—covering BTC, ETH, XRP, and other assets—set to launch on June 8.

The daily chart shows HYPE’s increased volatility over the past 24 hours along. Source: HYPEUSDT on TradingView.com

At the time of writing, Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, was trading at $44.60. This represented gains of 1.6% and almost 4% in the 24-hour and seven-day time frames, respectively.

Featured image created with OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat are the main regulatory concerns that CME and ICE have raised about Hyperliquid?

ACME and ICE are lobbying the CFTC and US lawmakers to push for federal oversight of Hyperliquid, arguing that its current operating environment could be vulnerable to market manipulation and sanctions evasion. They specifically worry that its anonymous trading model could allow actors with private or insider information to distort prices that affect broader market benchmarks, like oil.

QHow does the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) respond to the claim that its platform is vulnerable to manipulation?

AThe Hyperliquid Policy Center, led by CEO Jake Chervinsky, argues that the criticisms are unfounded. They contend that Hyperliquid offers higher transparency than traditional venues by publishing a complete, real-time on-chain record of every transaction. This visibility, they claim, creates a hostile environment for insider trading or manipulation and provides clearer material for regulators to surveil and investigate.

QWhat specific action do CME and ICE reportedly want Hyperliquid to take?

AAccording to the Bloomberg report, CME and ICE are urging Hyperliquid to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This registration would typically require the platform to implement customer identification programs and trade surveillance measures, which clash with Hyperliquid's current anonymous trading model.

QWhat does the article suggest about the potential motivation behind CME and ICE's lobbying efforts?

AThe article, citing other reports like one from The Defiant, suggests the lobbying move may be self-interested. It notes that CME itself is expanding its own 24/7 crypto trading offerings, including new Bitcoin Volatility Futures and Nasdaq CME Crypto Index Futures set to launch in June, implying potential competitive motives.

QAccording to the Hyperliquid Policy Center, what is one key regulatory challenge for on-chain derivatives markets?

AThe Hyperliquid Policy Center acknowledges that U.S. law is not yet tailored to derivatives markets operating on public blockchains like Hyperliquid. The group stated it plans to continue working with policymakers in Washington to bring on-chain markets inside the existing regulatory framework.

Related Reads

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbit38m ago

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbit38m ago

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbit57m ago

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbit57m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy PUSH

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Push Protocol (PUSH) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Push Protocol (PUSH) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Push Protocol (PUSH)After purchasing your Push Protocol (PUSH), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Push Protocol (PUSH)Easily trade Push Protocol (PUSH) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

3.6k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy PUSH

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of PUSH (PUSH) are presented below.

活动图片