Kalshi and Coinbase Receive CFTC Approval, Ushering in the Most Regulation-Friendly Era for the Crypto Industry?

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-05-30Востаннє оновлено о 2026-05-30

Анотація

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took two landmark actions on May 29. It approved Kalshi's application to list a Bitcoin perpetual futures contract and issued a no-action letter to Coinbase Financial Markets. This allows Coinbase to offer certain perpetual futures products to U.S. customers through a subsidiary, with digital assets permitted as collateral. These moves, coupled with a new CFTC policy statement, provide a clearer regulatory pathway for perpetual contracts in the U.S., moving them from a regulatory gray area. CFTC Chair Mike Selig stated this is a key step for U.S. crypto leadership but noted the policy is not yet permanent. The article explains that CFTC's previous reluctance stemmed from legal ambiguities, as perpetual contracts lack an expiration date. However, such contracts dominate global crypto derivatives, accounting for ~78% of centralized exchange volume in 2025, forcing U.S. regulators to adapt to competition from offshore platforms like Hyperliquid. The approvals offer two compliance paths: Kalshi's direct listing and Coinbase's model using foreign futures. This is expected to attract institutional capital back to regulated U.S. venues, stimulate the launch of more products like ETH perpetuals, and enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global crypto derivatives market. The author suggests this may signal a "regulatorily friendly" era for crypto.

Author: Ma He, Foresight News

On May 29th, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced two landmark actions on the same day: it formally approved the Bitcoin perpetual contract submitted by KalshiEX, LLC (Kalshi). Additionally, the CFTC issued a no-action letter to Coinbase, allowing Coinbase to offer certain perpetual futures products to U.S. customers through its subsidiary.

The CFTC also released a "Policy Statement on the Listing of Perpetual Contracts," providing a clear guidance framework for the listing of perpetual products on regulated markets. This combination of actions signifies a crucial step away from the longstanding regulatory gray area for U.S. crypto derivatives, moving toward a compliant path for genuine perpetual contracts.

Kalshi and Coinbase Both Receive Regulatory Approval

The CFTC's review determined that Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual contract complies with the core principles of the Commodity Exchange Act and Designated Contract Market (DCM) regulations, including the depth and liquidity of the underlying Bitcoin spot market, contract design, and risk management capabilities. The approval order requires Kalshi to maintain ongoing compliance and clarifies that the perpetual contract design "may not be suitable for all asset classes," encouraging other market participants to engage with regulators and submit formal applications for perpetual products based on different underlying assets.

Furthermore, the CFTC's Division of Market Participants issued an interpretive letter and a no-action letter to the registered futures commission merchant Coinbase Financial Markets (CFM), permitting it to offer crypto options and perpetual contracts listed on Deribit to U.S. users. The letter confirms that these perpetual contracts can be classified as foreign futures under CFTC Regulation 30.1. Under specified conditions, the CFTC stated it would not recommend enforcement action against CFM for transferring customer-held digital commodities and payment stablecoins to its foreign broker affiliate for margin purposes, where the affiliate may exercise rehypothecation rights over such customer assets.

Previously, the U.S. market lacked genuine perpetual contracts (with no expiration date). Coinbase Derivatives had self-certified and launched "perpetual-style" futures in July 2025 (with contract terms up to 5 years), designed to mimic perpetual economic characteristics but still retaining an expiration date. Today's approval and no-action letters provide a dual compliance pathway for "true perpetuals": Kalshi follows the standard DCM futures route, while Coinbase reaches U.S. customers via the foreign futures + crypto collateral route.

Mike Selig

CFTC Chairman Mike Selig emphasized in his statement that perpetual contracts are important tools for risk management and price discovery in the global crypto asset market. Introducing true perpetual contracts in the U.S. is a significant step toward establishing the U.S. as a global crypto hub. He noted that the CFTC has established a workable regulatory framework for crypto asset perpetual contracts and will maintain market integrity by limiting excessive leverage, market volatility, and systemic risk.

Selig also acknowledged that the CFTC's current regulatory stance has not yet been formalized into a permanent rule, and future policies may adjust as the regulatory environment evolves.

The Trillion-Dollar Market Opportunity

So, why had the CFTC not approved true Bitcoin perpetual contracts until now?

Perpetual contracts were considered a "novel" product within the traditional commodity futures framework. They lack an expiration date and final settlement, which conflicts with the conventional understanding under the Commodity Exchange Act that traditional futures "must have an expiration date and a convergence mechanism." The CFTC internally debated whether to classify them as futures or swaps, as different classifications entail entirely different regulatory requirements (including clearing, margin, reporting obligations, etc.). This legal ambiguity made it difficult for platforms to secure a solid compliance path.

Furthermore, concerns about their high leverage and speculative nature, along with fears of market manipulation, have kept the CFTC's approach cautious.

BTCPERP, as a perpetual contract tracking the Bitcoin spot price, has no fixed expiration date. It uses a funding rate mechanism for periodic settlements between long and short positions to maintain a tight peg between the contract price and the spot price.

Perpetual contracts have long dominated the global crypto derivatives market. According to CoinGecko's 2025 annual report, the cumulative trading volume of crypto derivatives on centralized exchanges globally was approximately $85.7 trillion, with perpetual contracts accounting for about 78%. In 2025, the cumulative volume of perpetual contracts on decentralized exchanges reached about $6.7 trillion (a 346% year-over-year increase).

Ironically, while traditionalist regulators in Washington debated compliance, offshore decentralized perpetual platforms like Hyperliquid had already extended their reach to S&P 500, crude oil, and gold through on-chain synthetic assets. By the end of May 2026, Hyperliquid's perpetual trading volume had risen to $586.12 billion, and according to Allium on-chain data, the total open interest for Hyperliquid's network-wide derivatives also hit a record high of nearly $60 billion at the end of May. An increasing number of individuals and institutions are choosing to trade on its platform.

Hyperliquid Latest Open Interest

This unprecedented approval by the CFTC is not just an accommodation to the crypto market; it is a necessary "onshore defense battle" forced upon the compliant world by the innovative pressure from offshore "everything-as-a-perpetual-asset."

In contrast, while regulated Bitcoin futures like those on CME provide stable hedging tools for institutions, their leverage and trading characteristics differ from the perpetual products favored by retail/professional traders.

This approval by the CFTC undoubtedly opens a new battleground for Kalshi in the prediction market. The boundary between prediction markets and traditional crypto derivatives markets has completely blurred; Kalshi can leverage its compliant event-settlement logic to tap into the perpetual capital pool originally belonging to centralized exchanges. For Coinbase, the trading volume and revenue from its perpetual contracts will likely be reflected concretely in its next financial report.

U.S. traders previously relied heavily on offshore platforms, facing custody risks, regulatory uncertainty, and barriers to institutional access. The release of this regulatory policy, which supports crypto collateral, will attract traditional institutions like hedge funds and family offices to participate. Traders can hold leveraged positions long-term to hedge spot exposure without frequent operations; it will also attract some offshore traffic back to U.S. compliant channels.

Simultaneously, the approval for Kalshi and Coinbase will stimulate the accelerated launch of other products like ETH perpetuals, forming a more complete crypto derivatives matrix. In the long term, this policy may enhance the U.S.'s competitiveness in the global crypto derivatives ecosystem, attracting more capital, talent, and infrastructure, creating favorable conditions for deeper integration between crypto assets and traditional finance.

Now may indeed be the most regulation-friendly era for the crypto industry.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat were the two major actions taken by the CFTC on May 29th regarding crypto derivatives?

AOn May 29th, the CFTC officially approved Kalshi's application to list a Bitcoin perpetual contract, and issued a no-action letter to Coinbase Financial Markets, allowing it to offer certain perpetual futures products to U.S. customers through a foreign affiliate.

QWhy was the approval of a 'true' Bitcoin perpetual contract in the U.S. considered a significant step?

AIt was significant because, under the traditional Commodity Exchange Act framework, perpetual contracts (with no expiry date) conflicted with the conventional definition of futures. The approval moves crypto derivatives from a regulatory gray area towards a clear, compliant path for truly perpetual products within the U.S.

QAccording to the article, what percentage of global centralized crypto derivatives trading volume do perpetual contracts represent?

AAccording to CoinGecko's 2025 annual report data cited in the article, perpetual contracts accounted for approximately 78% of the cumulative trading volume on global centralized crypto derivatives exchanges.

QWhat does CFTC Chairman Mike Selig say is an important step in making the U.S. a global crypto hub?

ACFTC Chairman Mike Selig stated that introducing true perpetual contracts in the United States is an important step in advancing the U.S. as a global crypto hub.

QHow does the article characterize the CFTC's approval in relation to offshore platforms like Hyperliquid?

AThe article characterizes the CFTC's approval as a defensive move 'onshore,' a compromise by the regulated world in response to the innovation and growth of offshore platforms that have already popularized perpetual contracts for a wide range of assets, including traditional ones like the S&P 500.

Пов'язані матеріали

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 хв тому

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit18 хв тому

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 хв тому

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

marsbit25 хв тому

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 хв тому

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

marsbit38 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси

Популярні статті

Як купити ERA

Ласкаво просимо до HTX.com! Ми зробили покупку Caldera (ERA) простою та зручною. Дотримуйтесь нашої покрокової інструкції, щоб розпочати свою криптовалютну подорож.Крок 1: Створіть обліковий запис на HTXВикористовуйте свою електронну пошту або номер телефону, щоб зареєструвати обліковий запис на HTX безплатно. Пройдіть безпроблемну реєстрацію й отримайте доступ до всіх функцій.ЗареєструватисьКрок 2: Перейдіть до розділу Купити крипту і виберіть спосіб оплатиКредитна/дебетова картка: використовуйте вашу картку Visa або Mastercard, щоб миттєво купити Caldera (ERA).Баланс: використовуйте кошти з балансу вашого рахунку HTX для безперешкодної торгівлі.Треті особи: ми додали популярні способи оплати, такі як Google Pay та Apple Pay, щоб підвищити зручність.P2P: Торгуйте безпосередньо з іншими користувачами на HTX.Позабіржова торгівля (OTC): ми пропонуємо індивідуальні послуги та конкурентні обмінні курси для трейдерів.Крок 3: Зберігайте свої Caldera (ERA)Після придбання Caldera (ERA) збережіть його у своєму обліковому записі на HTX. Крім того, ви можете відправити його в інше місце за допомогою блокчейн-переказу або використовувати його для торгівлі іншими криптовалютами.Крок 4: Торгівля Caldera (ERA)Легко торгуйте Caldera (ERA) на спотовому ринку HTX. Просто увійдіть до свого облікового запису, виберіть торгову пару, укладайте угоди та спостерігайте за ними в режимі реального часу. Ми пропонуємо зручний досвід як для початківців, так і для досвідчених трейдерів.

464 переглядів усьогоОпубліковано 2025.07.17Оновлено 2026.06.02

Як купити ERA

Обговорення

Ласкаво просимо до спільноти HTX. Тут ви можете бути в курсі останніх подій розвитку платформи та отримати доступ до професійної ринкової інформації. Нижче представлені думки користувачів щодо ціни ERA (ERA).

活动图片