Perpetual futures systemic-risk debate misses the real issue, CoinDesk opinion says

A CoinDesk opinion piece argues that the systemic-risk case against perpetual futures is aimed at the wrong object. The article says risk in crypto derivatives markets is shaped less by the no-expiry contract itself than by the design of the venue listing it — including leverage limits, margin rules, funding design and default management. In that framing, liquidation cascades become systemic when bad market structure allows forced selling, false-price triggers or auto-deleveraging to transmit losses across venues. The piece was written by Bullish Exchange President Chris Tyrer and product marketing lead Tram Doman. It notes that Bullish has filed with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for designation as a Designated Contract Market and for registration as a Derivatives Clearing Organization. The authors also address a separate objection raised in a recent JPMorgan note: that institutional demand for perpetuals is limited because they are speculative tools, lack term structure and carry basis risk. Their counterargument is narrower. Institutions, they say, often use perpetuals not as substitutes for dated futures, but as liquid instruments for delta hedging options exposure. In their view, the key test is not whether perpetuals are inherently dangerous, but how a venue handles defaults when markets come under stress.