The CFTC's clearing and risk division issued staff guidance setting risk management expectations for registered derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) handling tokenized collateral, including tokenized US Treasuries. The guidance, not a broad approval, focuses on daily valuation, liquidity, custody, and operational dependencies.

Hyperliquid is still geoblocked in the United States because its permissionless on-chain market structure does not fit cleanly within U.S. derivatives law, which assigns trading, clearing, and customer onboarding to registered intermediaries. According to the MarsBit report, Hyperliquid Policy Center has been pressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to modernize those rules so regulated firms can use HyperCore while taking on the required compliance duties themselves. The article says Hyperliquid has spent the past year reframing itself from a decentralized perpetuals venue into a broader piece of market infrastructure spanning perpetuals, spot, and prediction markets. That argument rests on a modular stack: HyperCore handles matching, margin, and settlement; deployers configure markets and stake 500,000 HYPE; builders route users and order flow. The tension is that U.S. law expects those roles to sit inside registered entities, while Hyperliquid puts them into protocol logic and self-custodied access. MarsBit also points to testnet updates that could support a compliant access model. Permissioned HIP-3 deployers can whitelist users, and a payload-level “PA” authority lets a DEX perform account actions such as reduce-only orders, cancellations, and internal USDC transfers. In the report’s framing, those tools could allow U.S. brokers and institutions to offer regulated access to Hyperliquid markets without changing the protocol’s role as neutral infrastructure.

Hyperliquid is still geoblocked in the United States because its permissionless onchain market structure does not fit cleanly within current U.S. derivatives law. The project’s policy push has focused on a narrower argument: keep Hyperliquid as neutral infrastructure, but let regulated firms handle KYC, market supervision, listing discretion, and customer access on top of HyperCore. That case has been taken to both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission through the Hyperliquid Policy Center, which was launched in February 2026 with 1 million HYPE, valued in the source at roughly $72.5 million. In July, the group and Phantom asked the CFTC to clarify that publishing onchain software should not by itself trigger licensing, while allowing licensed entities to run matching, clearing, and margin functions onchain. In August, HPC and TradeXYZ brought a similar framework to the SEC for pre-IPO perpetuals tied to names such as SpaceX and Cerebras. On the product side, Hyperliquid Labs has introduced testnet changes including permissioned HIP-3 deployers and PA account controls, creating a technical route for whitelisted, KYC-screened access without changing the protocol’s broader permissionless base layer.

Ansem said on X that Kraken could be a potential partner for Hyperliquid if the protocol wants to operate in the U.S. on a compliant basis. His argument centers on two pieces: product fit and regulatory coverage. According to Ansem, Hyperliquid would likely need a partner that understands its product structure while also holding a full set of relevant U.S. regulatory approvals, and Kraken may fit that profile. He pointed to Kraken’s recent acquisitions of NinjaTrader and Bitnomial, saying those deals leave its parent company, Payward, with FCM, DCM and DCO licenses under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, framework. At the same time, he said Hyperliquid has already built the needed infrastructure through HIP-3. On that basis, Kraken could theoretically join as a new participant and offer related products in a way similar to TradeXYZ. Ansem also referenced Arjun Sethi’s repeated public comments that Kraken wants to play a “positive-sum game.” In his view, Kraken’s upside is being materially underestimated among existing U.S. centralized exchanges, and a deal of this kind, if it happens, could expand Kraken’s market reach and add an important business line.

Lorenzo Valente, head of digital asset research at ARK Invest, said Hyperliquid is in discussions with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission about enabling U.S.-regulated companies to offer perpetual futures on its public blockchain. He argued that a Gemini acquisition could give Hyperliquid a direct route into the U.S. market through an existing regulated entity. Valente said Gemini’s current market value is about $450 million, down more than 85% from its $3.3 billion valuation at the time of its 2025 IPO. In his view, that price would allow Hyperliquid to acquire Gemini’s full U.S. regulatory stack, including a NYDFS Trust Charter, DCM, DCO, FCM, MTLs, and a broker-dealer license. He added that Hyperliquid could use roughly 7.9 million HYPE from its community reserve, worth about $550 million at $70 per token, to fund the deal at around a 20% premium to Gemini’s current market value. Under the proposed structure, Gemini would handle KYC, custody, fiat rails, brokerage, clearing, and compliance in the U.S., while Hyperliquid L1 would provide market infrastructure, liquidity, and on-chain settlement.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to Parts 37, 38 and 39 of the CFTC’s regulations, along with Sections 1.52 and 1.55. The comment period will remain open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The proposal is aimed at addressing potential conflicts of interest tied to growing affiliations among regulated entities, including derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, futures commission merchants and market makers. CFTC Chair Michael S. Selig said the proposal would create a principles-based regulatory framework for vertically integrated market structures while preserving market integrity and supporting innovation in U.S. derivatives markets.

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.

Kraken parent Payward plans to acquire Bitnomial in a deal worth up to $550 million, securing three major US derivatives licenses and expanding its regulated market infrastructure and product reach.