The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued a formal policy statement outlining how it plans to handle perpetual contracts that reference asset classes beyond Bitcoin, establishing a case-by-case review framework under Commission Regulation 40.3.
The policy statement was released the same day the Commission approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP contract — the first true Bitcoin perpetual futures product listed on a U.S.-regulated exchange. But while the Kalshi approval opened the door for Bitcoin perps, this policy statement defines how every other asset class will be treated going forward.
Perpetual Contracts Must Go Through Regulation 40.3
The CFTC made clear that perpetual contracts tied to asset classes not covered by the Kalshi approval order — including agricultural products, precious metals, equity securities, and narrow-based security indexes — must be submitted for Commission review and approval through the voluntary product approval process under Regulation 40.3.
Regulation 40.2 allows registered exchanges to self-certify new products when they determine a contract complies with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). However, the Commission said the unique characteristics of perpetual contracts, including their lack of a traditional expiration date and the complex questions they raise around market structure and customer protections, mean the public interest is better served by requiring formal review.
“Each asset class will raise different considerations and merit independent analysis and review based on their unique circumstances,” the CFTC said in the policy statement. The agency specifically noted that perpetual contracts are “likely particularly ill-suited for agricultural products,” while contracts referencing equity securities or narrow-based security indexes would benefit from joint review by the CFTC and the SEC.
Why the CFTC Sees Perpetuals as Structurally Different
The policy statement dedicates significant attention to explaining why perpetual contracts cannot simply be treated like traditional futures.
Traditional futures rely on a fixed expiration date to achieve price convergence with the underlying spot market. A perpetual contract has no expiration. Instead, it uses a funding rate mechanism—periodic payments between long and short sides—to keep the contract’s price aligned with the spot price of the underlying asset.
When a perpetual trades above spot, long holders pay short holders; when it trades below, the reverse occurs. The funding rate is designed to incentivize arbitrage activity that narrows the gap between the perpetual’s price and the spot.
The CFTC said this design creates a fundamentally different manipulation risk profile. For a traditional cash-settled futures contract, the susceptibility-to-manipulation analysis focuses on one moment—settlement at expiry. For a perpetual, the reference price must be reliable at every funding interval, continuously, for as long as the contract remains active.
Policy Follows Year-Long CFTC Engagement on Perps
The statement traces the Commission’s path to this framework. In April 2025, CFTC staff issued a Request for Comment on the trading and clearing of perpetual-style derivatives, alongside a separate request on 24/7 derivatives trading. Both sought public input on the operational, surveillance, clearing, and margin implications of these products.
In July 2025, the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets published its report, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, which recommended that the CFTC and SEC allow eligible market participants to access derivatives — including perpetuals — through regulated intermediaries. The report encouraged both agencies to use existing exemptive and interpretive authorities to provide near-term clarity.
This policy statement is the CFTC’s most direct response to those recommendations. By establishing a formal Regulation 40.3 pathway rather than allowing self-certification, the Commission is signaling that innovation in perpetual contracts will be supervised, not open-ended.
What the Policy Statement Does Not Do
The CFTC was explicit about the policy statement’s legal boundaries. It does not impose any obligation, modify the CEA or Commission regulations, or create any enforceable right. It is a general statement of policy under the Administrative Procedures Act, not a rulemaking.
The Commission also left the door open for future changes. The statement says nothing in it forecloses the possibility that the CFTC might address perpetual contracts through separate policy statements, interpretive guidance, or a formal rulemaking process in the future.
Broader Context: A Coordinated Perps Push
The policy statement was one piece of a broader coordinated action by the CFTC. On the same day, the Commission approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP contract, issued a no-action letter allowing Coinbase Financial Markets to route U.S. customers to Deribit perpetual futures as foreign futures, and released a staff advisory on 24/7 trading, clearing, and settlement.
Taken together, the actions represent the most significant single-day regulatory move on crypto derivatives in U.S. history. The policy statement ensures that as exchanges race to bring new perpetual products onshore — a trend accelerated by Kalshi and Polymarket’s competing perps launches and ICE’s partnership with OKX on oil perpetuals — each new asset class will require the CFTC’s explicit sign-off.
