The Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] have asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to create a U.S. framework for perpetual crude oil contracts, arguing that regulated markets should be able to price energy risk around the clock rather than close during weekends and holidays.
In a Wednesday filing responding to the CFTC’s request for comment on crude oil perpetuals and 24/7 trading, the two groups said a domestic rulebook could move a type of derivatives trading now concentrated on offshore platforms into a federally supervised market. Their proposal centers on perpetual contracts, or perps: derivatives with no set expiry date that use a funding mechanism to keep their price close to an underlying reference market.
The submission places energy perps alongside the agency’s emerging approach to crypto-linked perpetual futures. CFTC staff previously cleared KalshiEX and Coinbase to list bitcoin perpetual futures products, while the agency’s June consultation expanded the discussion to crude oil contracts and continuous trading schedules.
Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] argued that a similar approach to oil would give U.S. participants a venue to manage risk when benchmark futures exchanges are shut. The groups pointed to supply-chain disruptions in the Middle East following U.S. and Israeli missile strikes on Iran, which they said produced supply concerns during a weekend period when conventional oil futures markets were closed.
Weekend events expose gaps in market hours
Crude oil prices are heavily shaped by geopolitical developments, production outages, shipping disruptions and changes in government policy. Many of those events do not wait for an exchange’s opening bell. A perpetual market operating continuously could allow participants to trade their view of oil-price risk as events unfold, rather than waiting for dated futures markets to reopen.
The filing did not argue that perpetuals should displace established futures contracts tied to benchmark grades of oil. Instead, it described them as an additional instrument that could operate alongside conventional monthly or quarterly contracts.
That distinction is central to the regulatory debate. Traditional futures remain closely connected to established delivery structures, physical supply chains and benchmark pricing systems. Perpetuals are designed for continuous exposure to price movements, with no need to roll a position into a later-dated contract as expiration approaches.
For market participants already using futures, a regulated oil perp could offer a more direct way to hedge exposure over a short, unpredictable window. It could also create a new venue for speculative trading, making market-surveillance rules, collateral requirements and protections against manipulation central to any eventual CFTC framework.
Filing calls for principles-based rules
The groups asked the CFTC to take a “technology neutral” and principles-based approach, rather than write rules around one trading venue or blockchain architecture. Such a framework could allow both conventional and blockchain-based market operators to offer products if they meet the same standards for market integrity, customer protection and regulatory oversight.
Their letter also asked the commission to clarify the meaning of “business day” in rules containing timing requirements. That issue becomes more complicated in a market that runs every hour of every day. Regulatory deadlines, margin calls, reporting windows and settlement processes have historically been built around weekday trading calendars.
A 24/7 contract would force regulators and market operators to decide whether certain compliance requirements should run continuously or retain a conventional business-day clock. Clear definitions would reduce the risk that market participants interpret deadlines differently across trading platforms.
The Policy Center made a related appeal earlier in the week, when it sent a joint letter to the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission seeking a harmonized approach to perpetual-contract regulation. That request reflects a persistent difficulty for crypto-native trading systems: determining which agency has authority when a product resembles a commodity derivative but is traded through software and collateral structures common in digital-asset markets.
Onshore oversight is the policy objective
The latest filing frames federal regulation as an alternative to leaving energy-perpetual activity largely in offshore markets. U.S. oversight could require platforms to maintain surveillance systems, publish contract rules, manage collateral risk and provide regulators with visibility into trading activity.
The request does not itself create a path for any specific platform to list oil perps. The CFTC would need to determine how existing derivatives rules apply, whether new guidance is necessary, and how a perpetual contract can meet requirements designed around instruments with fixed settlement dates.
Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] also referenced a recent White House appearance in which President Donald Trump said CFTC Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States “in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” The reference ties the oil-perpetual proposal to a larger effort by blockchain-based trading platforms to obtain clearer access to U.S. markets.
A federal framework for crude oil perps would test whether the CFTC can apply derivatives oversight to continuous, software-driven markets without weakening the safeguards that govern energy trading. The agency’s eventual response will help determine whether always-on commodity contracts can develop in the United States under the same regulatory perimeter as more familiar futures products.
To understand perpetual futures behind 24/7 oil trading, explore our guide on perpetual contracts and market structure.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
