For the First Time, the U.S. Government Lifts Ban on Crypto Perpetual Contracts: What Does It Mean for the Market?

marsbit2026-05-30 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-05-30 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

On May 29, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued guidance permitting 7*24 trading and clearing for crypto asset derivatives, effectively opening the U.S. market to crypto perpetual contracts for the first time. This move allows U.S. citizens and certain platforms to trade these instruments around the clock. Key beneficiaries include Kalshi, which received approval to list a Bitcoin perpetual contract; Coinbase, now the first CFTC-regulated Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) for U.S. clients; and CME, which will transition its Bitcoin futures and options to 7*24 trading. The CFTC emphasized that this is a tailored approach for crypto assets, requiring platforms to maintain compliance and risk assessments, while noting traditional commodities like agriculture may not be suitable for such hours. Industry leaders like Michael Saylor and Brian Armstrong praised the decision for bringing a major segment of the global crypto market to U.S. users. However, consumer advocacy group Better Markets criticized the CFTC, alleging it overlooked investor risks and acted in the industry's interest rather than the public's. Following the guidance, Kraken announced plans to launch CFTC-regulated perpetual futures in the U.S., signaling a potential surge in derivatives trading activity.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Wenser (@wenser 2010 )

On May 29, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued guidance on 7*24 trading supervision, emphasizing that, due to their digital infrastructure and global continuous trading features, derivatives related to crypto assets are more suitable for round-the-clock trading and clearing.

This means that the United States, previously considered a "no-go zone for crypto perpetual contracts," has opened its doors for the first time. It adds more fuel to the United States becoming a "crypto hub."

Numerous crypto trading platforms and traditional exchanges have responded promptly, launching corresponding trading gateways.

The CFTC's Biggest Gift to the Crypto Market: Opening the 7*24 Perpetual Market

According to incomplete statistics, in 2025, the trading volume of crypto derivatives perpetual contracts ranged between 60 trillion and 85 trillion US dollars, with the highest single-day trading volume reaching 750 billion US dollars; accounting for approximately 75% to 80% of total crypto trading volume.(Odaily Planet Daily Note:Kalshi postedstating the total trading volume for this market in 2025 exceeded 90 trillion US dollars)

However, for U.S. crypto platforms, regulations have never provided clear rules for this huge cake.

Now, the U.S. CFTC has officially opened this market, which originally had almost 0% share, to U.S. citizens and domestic crypto platforms as well as certain CEM exchanges. Simultaneously, U.S. institutions and individual users can now trade crypto perpetual contracts 7*24 seamlessly, eliminating the previous "time difference."

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig called this a historic step "to bring the world's most active crypto derivatives into the U.S. regulatory framework." The regulatory move quickly triggered action from leading crypto platforms.

Direct Beneficiaries of the New Policy: Kalshi, Coinbase, CME

On the same day, the U.S. CFTC issued a product certification order to the designated contract market KalshiEX, LLC, approving the listing of BTCPERP, a perpetual contract referencing the Bitcoin spot price, as a futures product for trading. The contract was submitted for approval under CFTC Regulation 40.3 on May 29, 2026. Additionally, Kalshi plans to launch over a dozen other crypto perpetual contracts subsequently.

Furthermore, Coinbase announced it has become the first and currently the only CFTC-regulated Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) in the U.S., providing U.S. clients with access to global crypto derivatives markets, including crypto perpetual contracts and options(connecting to platforms like Deribit, whose Bitcoin options open interest exceeds $31 billion); simultaneously, Coinbase also received approval to allow using client crypto assets/stablecoins as margin (subject to rehypothecation conditions).

Finally, as a traditional exchange, CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) is also a direct beneficiary of this policy change. Bitcoin futures and options on its Globex platform transitioned to 7*24 trading starting this Friday, ending the previous fixed weekend closure from Friday to Sunday, allowing institutional clients to hedge spot volatility seamlessly.

However, this does not mean trading volume will suddenly surge – although the "CME gap" formed due to weekend closures disappears, market liquidity remains concentrated mainly in ETF options and offshore perpetual contracts; the open interest scale of IBIT options is significantly higher than the CME crypto options market. Currently, large traders' short positions continue to decline, reducing short-term selling pressure, but clear long-term positioning trends have not yet formed.

The Cautious Stance Behind the CFTC Guidance: Commodity Differentiation and Strengthening Authority

Yesterday, alongside issuing a "No-Action Letter" to Coinbase, the relevant CFTC department specifically emphasized two things:

  1. Traditional commodity derivatives like agricultural products, due to their regional nature and trading structure, may not be suitable for fully 7*24 round-the-clock operation;
  2. Regulated trading platforms, swap execution facilities, derivatives clearing organizations, and futures commission merchants must comply with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and relevant regulatory rules when expanding round-the-clock trading, and proactively assess risk management and operational arrangements.

In other words, 7*24 perpetual trading for commodities like agricultural products is currently not permitted; and any institution wishing to offer 7*24 trading for derivatives must communicate with CFTC staff in advance, submit detailed plans and risk analyses, with the CFTC reviewing compliance on a case-by-case basis.

Thus, it can be seen that the CFTC's move is more like a "special case treatment" for crypto assets, opening a gateway for more crypto platforms to launch derivatives sections and further strengthening its regulatory authority over crypto asset derivatives.

Industry Insider Comments: Overwhelming Praise and Support

The CFTC's regulatory guidance represents the true localization of round-the-clock trading for crypto derivatives in the U.S. market. Liquidity from many domestic users previously excluded from the U.S. market is expected to flow back rapidly, further increasing participation from domestic institutions, capital efficiency, and to some extent reducing risk management costs (rollover costs, weekend time gaps).

Strategy founder Michael Saylor posted, stating the CFTC guidance advances Bitcoin capital markets, including round-the-clock trading, BTC collateral, perpetual futures, options, and regulated access. This will benefit BTC holders, support MSTR's development, and support STRC as Bitcoin-backed digital credit development.

Coinbase CEO Brian Amstrong cheered: "U.S. users have been excluded from this 80% segment of the global crypto market (including perpetual futures and options). But not anymore!"

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour stated, "This marks Kalshi's evolution from a prediction market leader to a next-generation derivatives exchange. U.S.-based, secure, and regulated perpetual contracts will improve capital allocation and risk management for countless U.S. businesses."

Such statements from beneficiaries are understandable. Some outsiders interpret it as "opening Pandora's box of speculation."

U.S. Public Interest Third-Party Organization: CFTC Ignores Public Interest and Investor Protection

Better Markets, a third-party consumer protection organization established after the 2008 financial crisis, officially stated, "Retail investors are unlikely to fully understand the risks posed by perpetual futures. We urged the CFTC last year to require enhanced disclosures that are easier for retail investors to understand. Unfortunately, the CFTC not only failed to require such enhanced disclosures but also seemed to completely ignore the risks of the products it approved."

"The CFTC's action lacks the decorum expected of a regulator. However, considering Coinbase and Kalshi serve as advisory bodies on two of the CFTC's advisory committees, this is not surprising. It's clear the CFTC's work is not for the public interest or protecting investors, but for the very industries it is supposed to regulate."

The wording directly implies the U.S. CFTC might have interests involved or some level of internal cooperation with Coinbase and Kalshi.

The U.S. Market to Enter a Period of Derivatives Trading Explosion

Apart from the direct beneficiaries mentioned above, U.S. crypto exchange Kraken also stated it plans to launch the first CFTC-regulated perpetual futures product for the U.S. market within the next 30 days. Currently, perpetual futures on Kraken Pro are provided by NinjaTrader Clearing, LLC (operating as Kraken Derivatives US), a CFTC-registered Futures Commission Merchant; related spot margin and perpetual futures products will be offered on Bitnomial Exchange(Odaily Planet Daily Note: the latter is a CFTC-regulated exchange recently acquired by Kraken's parent company Payward).

Setting aside polarized opinions, the gate to the multi-trillion-dollar perpetual derivatives market is slowly opening for U.S. users.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the main implication of the CFTC's new guidance for crypto derivatives in the United States?

AThe main implication is the formal opening of the U.S. market for 24/7 trading of crypto perpetual contracts, which were previously largely inaccessible to U.S. citizens and regulated platforms. This allows U.S. individuals and institutions to trade crypto derivatives like perpetual swaps around the clock, eliminating previous time gaps like the "CME gap."

QWhich specific companies are mentioned as direct beneficiaries of the CFTC's new policy?

AThe article names three direct beneficiaries: Kalshi (specifically KalshiEX, LLC), Coinbase, and CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). Kalshi received approval to list a Bitcoin perpetual contract, Coinbase became the first CFTC-regulated FCM to offer U.S. clients access to global crypto derivatives, and CME will transition its Bitcoin futures and options to 24/7 trading on its Globex platform.

QAccording to the CFTC's statement, why are crypto assets deemed more suitable for 24/7 trading compared to traditional commodities like agricultural products?

AAccording to the CFTC, crypto assets are more suitable for 24/7 trading and clearing due to their digital infrastructure and global, continuous trading nature. In contrast, traditional commodity derivatives like agricultural products may not be suitable for fully continuous operation because of their regional characteristics and specific trading structures.

QWhat criticism does the consumer protection group Better Markets raise against the CFTC's decision?

ABetter Markets criticizes the CFTC for allegedly ignoring public interest and investor protection. They argue that retail investors are unlikely to fully understand the risks of perpetual futures, and they accuse the CFTC of failing to require enhanced, easily understandable disclosures. They also suggest potential undue industry influence, pointing out that Coinbase and Kalshi serve on CFTC advisory committees.

QWhat significant change is Kraken planning following the CFTC's new regulatory stance?

AFollowing the CFTC's guidance, Kraken announced plans to launch its first CFTC-regulated perpetual futures product for the U.S. market within the next 30 days. This offering will be facilitated through its partnership with the CFTC-registered futures commission merchant NinjaTrader Clearing, LLC (operating as Kraken Derivatives US) and the recently acquired, CFTC-regulated Bitnomial Exchange.

İlgili Okumalar

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit18 dk önce

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit18 dk önce

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit25 dk önce

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit25 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit38 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit38 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片