President Donald Trump has signaled support for bringing decentralized derivatives platform Hyperliquid into the United States through a regulated structure, potentially using CFTC-regulated exchange Bitnomial as the domestic access point rather than opening Hyperliquid’s existing venue directly to U.S. traders.
Trump said last month that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would work toward bringing Hyperliquid into the country in a compliant form. The proposal under discussion would connect U.S. markets to Hyperliquid’s technology and Layer 1 blockchain while placing trading, customer onboarding, and regulatory duties inside a separate U.S. framework.
Hyperliquid’s current terms restrict access by U.S.-based users, even though the underlying blockchain remains technically accessible to anyone able to interact with it. The distinction places the potential Bitnomial arrangement at the center of the debate: it could create a regulated product linked to Hyperliquid without treating the permissionless platform itself as open to the U.S. public.
Bitnomial could provide a regulated gateway
Recent disclosures describe a possible route in which Bitnomial would offer products tied to Hyperliquid markets or infrastructure. Bitnomial operates under CFTC oversight, giving a prospective U.S. product an established regulatory entity that could handle customer protections, market surveillance and compliance obligations.
Nicolai Sondergaard, a research analyst at Nansen, described the idea as a separate American product built around parts of Hyperliquid’s infrastructure rather than a simple expansion of the existing decentralized exchange.
That distinction could shape how closely a U.S. offering resembles Hyperliquid’s offshore-facing venue. A regulated platform would likely need identity verification, sanctions screening, transaction monitoring and formal rules for holding customer assets. It could also offer fewer perpetual contracts, impose lower leverage caps and use tighter liquidation controls than a permissionless derivatives protocol.
Perpetual contracts are futures-like products with no fixed expiry date. They have become a major part of cryptocurrency derivatives trading, but their leverage and continuous trading model have made them a difficult fit for U.S. market rules designed around traditional exchange structures.
A domestic platform linked to Hyperliquid would therefore probably compete on regulated access and product design rather than on offering every market available through the underlying protocol. That could divide liquidity between the global platform and a narrower U.S. venue, particularly if only a limited set of major crypto assets receives approval.
Regulatory work would extend beyond the CFTC
Ashley Ebersole, former senior counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission and now co-founder and chief legal officer at real-world-assets platform tx, said the CFTC would not be the only regulator involved. The SEC could also need to address interpretive questions involving custody, trade routing and the mechanics of a product that connects regulated entities to blockchain-based infrastructure.
Ebersole said Bitnomial’s connection to Hyperliquid could reduce the time required to establish a compliant market structure compared with building a new exchange, clearing arrangement and compliance program from scratch. Yet the connection would not automatically clear products for listing.
Each asset and contract structure could require separate regulatory consideration. Ebersole said revisions or new interpretations at the CFTC and SEC can move slowly, with even faster processes potentially taking up to a year.
The prospect of coordinated oversight reflects the unsettled division of authority over crypto markets in the United States. The CFTC generally oversees commodity derivatives, while the SEC’s role can become relevant where an underlying asset, custody arrangement or product design raises securities-law questions.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center, a policy group associated with the ecosystem, urged the two agencies last month to create a harmonized framework for perpetual contracts. Its request follows efforts by major market operators to make around-the-clock derivatives trading compatible with U.S. rules.
Perpetuals are moving closer to U.S. markets
The CFTC in May approved KalshiEX and Coinbase to list bitcoin perpetual futures, opening a path for such products to trade under U.S. supervision. The approvals gave the industry a regulatory reference point, though each exchange’s product design and clearing arrangements remain central to how regulators assess risk.
Coinbase said Thursday that it had filed a notice registration form with the SEC seeking permission to list equity perpetuals. The filing extends the perpetual-contract debate beyond crypto, as exchanges look for ways to offer markets that trade outside the traditional 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern schedule.
CME Group already provides near-continuous liquidity five days a week in many futures markets. Crypto-native operators, meanwhile, have built products around 24-hour trading, rapid collateral transfers and automated liquidations. Bringing that model into the U.S. would require domestic exchanges to reconcile continuous markets with established requirements around margin, clearing, surveillance and customer safeguards.
Mark Hays, associate director at Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress, said policies that accelerate access for crypto derivatives platforms can create financial-stability concerns. CME Group Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Terrence Duffy has also warned about risks linked to crypto perpetuals, while CME has challenged the CFTC’s approval of perpetual futures in court.
Those disputes suggest that a Hyperliquid-linked U.S. product could face resistance not only from regulators, but also from established futures-market participants concerned about how perpetual contracts would be supervised during periods of sharp volatility.
Compliance demands could reshape the product
A U.S. access layer would likely screen wallet activity and customer identities more closely than a decentralized venue. That would allow a regulated operator to meet anti-money-laundering and sanctions obligations, but it would also make the service structurally different from the system on which Hyperliquid built its global trading activity.
The result may be a filtered domestic market with stricter eligibility rules, more transparent reporting requirements and less flexibility around leverage and collateral. Traders accustomed to international crypto derivatives platforms could encounter different contracts, lower borrowing limits and account restrictions tied to compliance reviews.
Ebersole also pointed to unresolved policy fights in Congress, including disputes between banks and crypto companies over stablecoin rewards, as lawmakers work on broader digital-asset legislation. Those negotiations could affect the political environment for new derivatives products even if the immediate regulatory route runs through the CFTC.
For Hyperliquid, a Bitnomial-linked structure would offer a possible route into the U.S. without requiring the decentralized venue to abandon its existing global architecture. For U.S. regulators, it would test whether a platform built around blockchain-native market infrastructure can be adapted to the controls expected of a domestic derivatives exchange.
For deeper context on policy and oversight, explore how U.S. crypto regulation could evolve for derivatives platforms like Hyperliquid.
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.
