Coinbase and Kalshi Back CFTC in Stock Perps Lawsuit

Coinbase and Kalshi alongside four other companies, have asked a federal court to accept an amicus brief defending the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority to allow perpetual futures tied to individual U.S. stocks. The filing comes amid a lawsuit that could decide whether these crypto-inspired contracts remain available on regulated U.S. exchanges or face tighter restrictions.
The group—Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken parent Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading, and Paradigm—argues that single-stock perpetual futures qualify as security futures under existing U.S. law and fall under joint CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission oversight. Their proposed brief supports the CFTC against a challenge from the Capital Markets Alliance Association (CMAA), a trade group whose members include Cboe and Citadel Securities.
Why Stock Perps Are Under Fire
On November 3, 2026, the CFTC announced that single-stock perpetual futures—often called stock perps—could begin trading on U.S.-regulated exchanges for the first time. Applications from KalshiEX, Coinbase Derivatives, and Bitnomial (linked to Payward) had been submitted in mid-September. When the agency’s 45-day review period ended without objection on November 2, the products were deemed approved.
Unlike traditional futures, perpetual contracts have no fixed expiration date. Traders can hold positions indefinitely, with funding rates periodically adjusting to keep the contract price close to the underlying stock. This structure, popular in crypto markets, allows continuous speculation on individual equities without owning the shares.
The CMAA sued the CFTC shortly after the approval, arguing that the lack of a fixed expiration date means the contracts should be treated as security-based swaps. Those products are primarily overseen by the SEC and face stricter limits on retail participation. The group claims the CFTC exceeded its statutory authority by classifying the contracts as security futures.
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni later found that the CMAA was likely to succeed on the merits of that claim, writing that the perpetual contracts “appear to satisfy the definition of a swap.” However, she denied a temporary restraining order, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown imminent irreparable harm. Trading therefore continued while the case proceeds.
Crypto Firms Push Back on Regulatory Boundaries
In their proposed amicus brief, the six companies contend that a fixed expiration date is not required for a contract to qualify as a security future under the Commodity Exchange Act and the framework Congress established in 2000. They argue the products fit within the existing joint regulatory structure rather than shifting entirely to the SEC’s swap regime.
Coinbase and Kalshi, have direct commercial interests: each has sought to list equity perps. For crypto-native platforms, the contracts represent a bridge between digital-asset trading styles and traditional equities. Supporters say onshore, regulated access reduces the incentive for U.S. traders to use offshore venues. Critics from traditional finance worry about market structure, leverage, and the potential for retail risk.
The dispute highlights a broader tension. Perpetual futures originated in crypto and became a dominant form of leveraged trading globally. Bringing the same instrument to U.S. stocks tests whether existing commodity and securities laws can accommodate products that never expire. A ruling that reclassifies them as security-based swaps could limit retail access and slow the onshore growth of these markets.
What’s Next for the Case
The CMAA is scheduled to file its reply to the CFTC’s opposition to a preliminary injunction. The six firms’ request to submit the amicus brief is pending. Whatever the outcome, the case will shape how U.S. regulators treat hybrid products that blend crypto market design with traditional underlyings.
For now, stock perps remain available on approved platforms. The legal fight, however, underscores that regulatory clarity around perpetual contracts is still incomplete. Crypto firms are betting that the CFTC’s interpretation will hold; traditional market participants are arguing it should not. The court’s eventual decision will determine which view prevails.