CFTC lets US exchanges list perpetual futures on stocks
The CFTC says perpetual futures on individual stocks can list on US-regulated exchanges, according to Bitcoin Magazine, though no exchange or launch date is named.

The facts
- According to Bitcoin Magazine, the CFTC said Tuesday that perpetual futures on single stocks, which it calls "Equity Perps", are deemed approved as security futures products under Regulation 40.3.
- They can list on exchanges holding both a CFTC designated contract market registration and an SEC notice registration for security futures. The statement names no exchange, lists no contracts and sets no launch date.
- The CFTC approved the first US-listed bitcoin perpetual, Kalshi's BTCPERP, on May 29. CME Group sued the agency in June over that approval, arguing the contract is a swap, and the case is pending.
- Chairman Michael S. Selig linked the move to the Oct. 29 Binance theft of about $6.3 billion, which the report says TRM Labs and Chainalysis tie to North Korea's TraderTraitor group.
Case notes · Danny's take
Why it matters
Perpetual futures were an offshore crypto product. Now US regulators are pulling them onto domestic exchanges, and onto stocks, not just coins. That's the real shift: the product stays, the venue changes. Whether it works depends on the CME lawsuit and on how securities-side players react once the SEC's turf is involved.
For traders
Don't trade the headline. Nothing is listed yet, so watch which exchanges file contracts and what funding and margin rules they set. Keep an eye on the CME case too. A ruling against the CFTC's reading would change the picture fast.
For builders
Exchanges with dual registration now have a path to list stock perps, so expect filings from them first. Clearing, surveillance and funding-rate infrastructure is where the work will be. Dual-regulator compliance is the barrier, so build for it from day one.
Not financial advice. Do your own investigation.
This story was summarised with AI from Bitcoin Magazine's reporting and checked against our editorial policy. Danny's take reflects his views. Disclaimer.
