Hyperliquid Policy Center, the advocacy body tied to the Hyperliquid crypto exchange, has asked the SEC and the CFTC to harmonize their rules for perpetual contracts. The proposal would treat qualifying equity perpetuals as security futures, a classification that would pull them into the joint oversight framework already used for other derivative products.
Perpetual contracts are a staple of crypto markets. They let traders take long or short positions without an expiration date, and they're typically offered on platforms that operate outside traditional securities regulation. Security futures, meanwhile, are a well-established category requiring coordination between the SEC and the CFTC. The center wants to close the gap between those two worlds.
Where the rules get tangled
The SEC and CFTC each hold authority over different slices of the derivative market. The SEC oversees securities and certain investment contracts; the CFTC oversees futures and swaps. Perpetual contracts don't map neatly onto either label. They are futures-like in structure but often reference an underlying equity or index, which puts them in a gray zone where neither agency has a clear playbook.
Hyperliquid's policy team argues that the most direct fix is to classify qualifying equity perpetuals as security futures. Under that designation, a perpetual would be subject to the same joint rules that govern other security futures, including margin requirements, reporting duties, and registration expectations for the platforms that offer them. The proposal would effectively convert a newer crypto product into an older, regulated one, with the same protections for investors.
What the shift would change
Adopting the classification would not apply to all perpetuals. The recommendation focuses on those that track a single stock or an equity index, not the crypto-denominated ones like bitcoin or ether. For those equity-linked contracts, the change would mean a clear set of requirements instead of the current patchwork of state-by-state and agency-by-agency interpretations.
It would also place the burden on exchanges to register or seek exemptions, potentially bringing them under the SEC's inspection powers. The center did not specify a timeline or a preferred implementation path, only that the two agencies should act together to avoid conflicting guidance. That is the central ask: a single rulebook for a product that currently has none.
The next step
The recommendation now sits with the SEC and CFTC. Neither agency has announced a response or scheduled a comment period. The proposal is a request, not a filing, so it carries no legal weight. But it is a direct attempt to steer the direction of crypto regulation by naming a specific product category and a specific classification.
Whether the agencies take it up depends on their willingness to extend the security futures framework to a crypto derivative. That decision, if it comes, would likely involve a public rulemaking process and a period for feedback. For now, the ball is in their court, and no date has been set.
