Jake Chervinsky, chief executive of the Hyperliquid Policy Center, said major exchanges including CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange will need to adopt public blockchain infrastructure within the next decade if they want to remain competitive, framing perpetual futures as an early test of how regulated derivatives markets could move onchain.
Speaking Tuesday at the Digital Asset Summit 2026 Asia in Singapore, Chervinsky argued that Hyperliquid should be viewed less as a conventional exchange and more as open market infrastructure that can support different participants and regulated products. He compared the protocol’s role to public blockchain networks including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, where third parties can build services without owning the underlying network.
His comments arrive as U.S. firms explore ways to combine onchain trading systems with the licensing, clearing and customer-account structures required under American derivatives rules. The emerging model could give regulated brokers and exchanges a route to offer continuous futures-style products while retaining responsibility for customer protections, margining and clearing.
Payward plan places Hyperliquid beneath regulated market structure
Payward said in September that it intends to deploy permissioned perpetual markets on Hyperliquid for U.S. clients. Under that proposed arrangement, Bitnomial, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated exchange and clearinghouse acquired by Payward, would create and clear the contracts. NinjaTrader Clearing would carry customer accounts.
The structure divides functions that have often been bundled together on offshore crypto platforms. Hyperliquid would provide the public blockchain-based infrastructure, while U.S.-regulated entities would control the creation, clearing and account relationships attached to the products.
Permissioned markets generally restrict access to approved participants rather than allowing any wallet to trade directly. That design could give firms a way to use a public blockchain’s settlement and market infrastructure while applying identity checks, customer eligibility standards and other restrictions expected in domestic derivatives markets.
Chervinsky said Hyperliquid can be used by multiple types of firms, including companies operating in the United States. His argument rests on the distinction between a protocol and the financial firms offering products through it: a blockchain network can be public, while the venues and intermediaries connecting customers to products built on it can remain regulated.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said the CFTC would bring Hyperliquid onshore in a compliant manner, according to the remarks cited at the conference. Chervinsky said he expects onchain markets to enter the U.S. regulatory perimeter “at some point soon.”
Perpetual futures move closer to U.S. venues
The policy discussion follows steps that have made perpetual futures a more immediate issue for U.S. market operators. The CFTC previously opened the way for Kalshi to offer regulated perpetual futures to U.S. customers, while registered exchanges have been permitted to offer crypto perpetual products domestically.
A perpetual futures contract does not expire on a scheduled date, unlike a standard quarterly or monthly futures contract. Its price is typically kept close to the underlying asset through periodic funding payments between long and short traders. The product has become central to crypto derivatives markets because it allows continuous exposure without rolling contracts into a new expiry.
The U.S. approach described by Chervinsky would apply traditional oversight to those products without necessarily requiring the trading infrastructure itself to be a closed, proprietary system. That could alter the competitive balance between incumbent exchange groups and blockchain-native platforms, particularly if regulated firms decide public networks offer lower barriers to product distribution or more flexible settlement systems.
Chervinsky said dated futures and perpetual futures serve separate markets, even when they reference the same underlying asset. An exchange may list one, both or neither, he said, rejecting the idea that existing futures offerings automatically satisfy demand for perpetual contracts.
He also said perpetual products could expand beyond crypto. Oil, metals and agricultural contracts are among the markets he identified as suitable candidates, adding that commodity-linked products are already among Hyperliquid’s more active markets.
Continuous trading could appeal to participants seeking exposure outside conventional exchange hours, though it would also require clearing firms and brokers to adapt risk systems built around more limited market schedules.
CME lawsuit challenges the CFTC’s approach
CME Group has challenged the CFTC’s treatment of perpetual futures in a lawsuit filed in June. CME argues that the contracts should be classified as swaps rather than futures and is seeking to overturn an earlier approval. The case remains pending on a motion to dismiss.
The CFTC has argued that CME lacks standing to bring the case because the rule being challenged would allow CME itself to list the same type of product. Chervinsky said the dispute overlooks the commercial distinction between dated futures and perpetuals, which can attract different trading activity and operate under different market mechanics.
The litigation leaves uncertainty around the exact regulatory path for U.S.-listed perpetuals, even as firms such as Payward build structures designed to fit within the existing exchange and clearing framework. A court decision could influence how much discretion the CFTC has to treat perpetual products as futures and how rapidly other registered venues move to list them.
CME has also withdrawn a proposal for around-the-clock energy futures trading, citing staffing issues. Chervinsky said demand for 24/7 energy trading was also a factor in the decision, linking the episode to a broader question facing established derivatives venues: whether markets built around fixed operating hours can meet demand for continuous access.
For Hyperliquid and other onchain market systems, the opportunity depends less on replacing regulated exchanges outright than on becoming infrastructure those exchanges and their partners can use. The Payward proposal offers a practical version of that model, placing licensed entities around a public protocol rather than attempting to bypass the U.S. regulatory framework.
Explore how onchain derivatives work in practice with our guide to crypto perpetual futures and their market impact.
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.
