Hyperliquid's policy arm has filed a comment with the SEC and CFTC telling them that perpetual futures need one unified regulatory framework — and that the product should be defined by how it's built, not by the asset it tracks. The filing responds to the two agencies' joint request in June for input on harmonizing their derivatives product definitions.
Economics over assets
Hyperliquid's position is straightforward: perpetuals should be classified based on their economic structure rather than the underlying asset they track. A perpetual tied to a crypto token and one tied to an equity index can run on identical mechanics — no expiration, a funding rate pulling price back to the market — and that's the structure regulators should be examining. The asset's design, not the ticker, is what carries the risk.
The June request from the SEC and CFTC was a rare joint effort. Both agencies asked for public comment on where the line sits between a security and a futures product. Hyperliquid's reply argues that line is the problem.
The SEC-CFTC knot
Equity perpetuals sit right on a regulatory boundary. The underlying asset is a security, which puts it on SEC ground. But the contract behaves like a futures product, which is traditionally CFTC territory. That split means a single product could face conflicting sets of rules depending on which agency gets first crack at it. Hyperliquid's answer: classify by the contract's economic reality, not the underlying asset's legal label.
Why perps behave differently
Perpetual futures have no fixed expiration date. A funding-rate mechanism keeps contract prices aligned with the spot market, adjusting continuously instead of forcing a settlement. That's why the product found a natural home in crypto — it concentrates liquidity and spares traders the chore of rolling positions over, which fits a 24/7 trading environment. The mechanics are materially different from standard futures, and the rulebook hasn't caught up.
Where this lands
The comment window remains open, and the agencies haven't signaled what they'll do next. Whether the SEC and CFTC come back with a joint rule or keep separate product definitions is the open question. Hyperliquid has handed them a blueprint that treats both assets as one product — whether the regulators buy that framing is the next thing to watch.
