The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has opened a public comment process on two major questions: whether standard energy futures should trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and whether commodities with physical delivery or storage features, including crude oil, could support perpetual contracts. The review goes well beyond a routine update to exchange hours. It asks whether derivative structures common in crypto can be carried into core physical commodity markets.
CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said that as registered entities extend trading hours and introduce new contract designs, the Commission needs a clear, data-based record to understand the market impact. He said the request is meant to support innovation while keeping protections against manipulation and market disruption in place.
Sixty-seven questions split between trading hours and perpetual design
The consultation contains 67 questions. The first 30 deal with round-the-clock trading in standard futures, while the remaining 37 focus on perpetual energy contracts. That distinction matters. One issue is whether an existing crude oil future could keep its expiration date, delivery terms, margin framework and settlement process, yet trade through weekends and holidays. The other is whether a no-expiry contract, held in line through funding payments rather than delivery convergence, can function in energy markets.
In crypto, perpetuals became dominant because traders can keep leveraged exposure without rolling from one monthly contract to another. Oil is a different case. Storage costs, delivery points, logistics, seasonal patterns and commercial hedging demand all feed directly into price formation.
Why crude oil does not map neatly to bitcoin-style contracts
The CFTC makes clear that its recent analysis of bitcoin perpetuals does not transfer cleanly to oil. Bitcoin spot markets trade continuously across the world, making a reference price visible at almost any time. Physical oil markets do not work that way. Cash assessments often depend on defined pricing windows, storage constraints matter, and delivery locations can change the meaning of the contract. Benchmark crude futures are used by producers, refiners, airlines, commodity merchants, ETFs, swap desks and corporate hedgers.
That creates the central problem in the review. A perpetual contract depends on continuous price observability. An oil perpetual would need a reliable reference price at each funding interval, including weekends and holidays. The CFTC is asking whether any crude cash price series can meet that standard, and whether using a futures-based reference would introduce fresh manipulation risks. This goes to the integrity of the product itself.
The 2020 negative WTI episode remains a live stress case
The agency puts special weight on the April 2020 negative WTI event. At that point, the expiring crude oil futures contract settled below zero as storage at Cushing became constrained, while later-dated contracts remained positive. Standard futures eventually resolved the dislocation through expiration and delivery. A perpetual contract has no such terminal mechanism. The CFTC is asking whether a no-expiry oil product could absorb negative prices, storage stress, funding transfers and auto-liquidations without creating broader damage.
That is why the issue is not limited to commercial hedgers. Retail traders would also face the consequences. A weekend oil market may look flexible, but leveraged accounts could face margin calls and forced liquidations during periods of thinner liquidity and closed traditional payment rails.
Weekend price discovery, payment rails and position limits are under scrutiny
One of the most important parts of the request deals with prices formed outside normal market hours. The CFTC asks whether prices established in a smaller or more retail-heavy weekend contract could affect larger benchmark futures once traditional markets reopen. It also asks whether those prices could influence OTC derivatives, barrier options, structured products, swaps, ETFs, mutual funds, pension valuations, financing agreements, collateral requirements and commercial contracts tied to energy benchmarks.
Clearing and payments are another major concern. The Commission asks how a clearing organization would handle margin calls on weekends and holidays when Fedwire and CHIPS are closed. It also raises the possibility of tokenized cash, stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries, or added weekend margin buffers.
Position limits add another layer. NYMEX WTI crude oil is already subject to federal speculative position limits, but a perpetual contract has no expiry and no delivery month. That makes it hard to fit into a framework built around spot-month rules and deliverable supply. The CFTC is asking whether a perpetual should be treated as always in the spot month, never in the spot month, or mapped to the referenced futures contract as it rolls. Each option would affect manipulation risk and commercial hedging capacity.
Comments are due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register. The agency is specifically asking for data, empirical analysis, transaction statistics and supporting documents rather than broad claims. The review is not only about longer trading hours. It is a direct test of whether crypto-style market structure can be introduced into regulated energy benchmarks.