Decentralized exchange Hyperliquid has publicly criticized CME Group’s decision to sue the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), arguing the lawsuit is an attempt by the country’s largest derivatives exchange to preserve its market dominance after regulators opened the door to regulated crypto perpetual futures.
In a statement released through the Hyperliquid Policy Center via X on Thursday, the firm said Americans had long been forced to use offshore platforms to trade perpetual futures while similar products remained unavailable in regulated U.S. markets. It argued that recent regulatory changes finally created a compliant pathway for domestic trading, only for CME to challenge the decision in court.
“The real question is whether Americans get access to innovative new financial products, or whether one incumbent keeps them locked out,” Hyperliquid wrote.
Hyperliquid says competition benefits traders
Hyperliquid framed the dispute as a broader competition issue rather than simply a legal disagreement over derivatives regulation. The company cited figures from Better Markets claiming that CME accounts for roughly 92% of the U.S. exchange-traded derivatives market. According to Hyperliquid, such concentration limits competition and innovation while reducing choices for market participants.
The company also described perpetual futures as the first major new derivatives product introduced to regulated U.S. markets in more than a decade, arguing that multiple exchanges should be allowed to compete under a clear regulatory framework.
The statement also referenced comments from CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, quoting his recent remark that “Incumbents will always fear the future.”
CME challenges CFTC’s approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures
Hyperliquid’s response follows CME Group CEO Terry Duffy’s announcement that the exchange would file litigation against the CFTC over its approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures. Speaking to CNBC on June 17, Duffy argued that perpetual futures should legally be classified as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act rather than futures contracts. He said the distinction forms the basis of CME’s legal challenge.
According to Duffy, CME also holds exclusive licensing agreements with benchmark providers, meaning competing perpetual futures products would still need to go through the exchange if regulators ultimately allow them. The CME chief added that the exchange had spent approximately eight months preparing for the legal challenge alongside its board before deciding to proceed.
CFTC chair defends legal basis for perpetual futures
As the legal dispute unfolds, CFTC Chair Mike Selig has defended the regulator’s approval of perpetual futures, rejecting several criticisms surrounding the products. In an X post on Monday, Selig said U.S. law does not require futures contracts to have an expiration date and argued that regulated perpetual futures comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and longstanding legal interpretations.
He also dismissed claims that CFTC-approved perpetual contracts allow extreme 250x leverage, noting that regulated products are subject to the same margin and leverage requirements as other U.S. futures contracts.
Selig added that the Commission sought extensive industry feedback through its 2025 Request for Comment, which received more than 100 submissions, and said the funding rate mechanism helps keep perpetual futures prices aligned with spot markets rather than creating high costs.
Legal battle centers on U.S. crypto market structure
The dispute stems from the CFTC’s decision in late May to permit prediction market platform Kalshi to introduce Bitcoin perpetual futures in the United States. Perpetual futures, commonly known as “perps,” allow traders to speculate on asset prices without an expiration date and have become one of the most actively traded crypto derivatives globally. However, U.S. traders have historically relied on offshore exchanges due to regulatory restrictions.
CME maintains that these products fall under swap regulations, while supporters argue they can be listed as futures under the CFTC’s existing framework.
Why it matters
The lawsuit could influence how crypto derivatives are regulated in the United States and determine whether regulated perpetual futures become broadly available through competing exchanges.
The outcome may also clarify whether these products are treated as futures or swaps under U.S. law, shaping future innovation and competition in the domestic digital asset market.
Also Read: Kalshi Just Entered Canada—But Not Every Market Made the Cut
