CFTC Seeks Public Comment on 24/7 Trading of Energy Perpetual Contracts as CME Lawsuit Remains Pending
N.R. Finch
The CFTC opened public comment on energy perpetual contracts and round-the-clock trading, responding directly to CME and ICE concerns over offshore competition; meanwhile CME has sued the CFTC over crypto perpetuals approval, and the two tracks together will define how perpetual contracts are regulated in the U.S.
What exactly is the CFTC asking about?
The CFTC listed energy perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading as two separate topics, seeking public comment on both simultaneously.
Perpetual contracts — derivatives with no expiry date, eliminating the need to "roll" positions the way traditional futures require — have seen steadily rising volume. The CFTC previously approved prediction-market platform Kalshi to list Bitcoin perpetual futures.
This means → crypto perpetuals already have a precedent; regulators are now turning to energy, agriculture, and other traditional commodities, reviewing each in turn.
Why now, and who is pushing for this?
CME and ICE recently raised concerns with the CFTC: energy perpetual-contract trading on the offshore platform Hyperliquid may be distorting pricing on their own exchanges.
Both exchanges have urged Hyperliquid to register with the CFTC. In plain terms = the incumbents want regulators to pull offshore rivals into the same rulebook, eliminating the "regulatory-arbitrage" edge.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig stated the goal explicitly: build a "clear, data-driven record" to lay the groundwork for future rulemaking.
What makes perpetual contracts attractive — and what is the risk?
The appeal: no roll-over needed, lower cost to maintain positions. Some institutional traders favour them for exactly this reason.
The risk: perpetuals offer leveraged trading. Critics worry that as more institutions enter, retail participation will rise too, amplifying potential losses.
This reflects a deeper tension — product innovation lowers the barrier to trade, but a lower barrier is itself a source of risk.
What is CME's lawsuit actually about?
CME filed suit last week over the CFTC's approval of Kalshi to trade crypto perpetual contracts, alleging the regulator violated federal rules by classifying the products as "futures" rather than the more tightly regulated "swaps."
In plain terms = futures and swaps face different regulatory thresholds — listing as futures is easier; listing as swaps is harder. CME argues the CFTC chose the lenient path.
Kalshi, Coinbase, and the CFTC itself have all characterized the lawsuit as "an attack on market competition." This means → the two sides are telling opposite stories about the same case: one says "uphold the rules," the other says "block competition."
How do these two tracks converge, and what should the market watch?
The CFTC's comment process runs outside the courtroom, aiming to build a "data-driven record" for future rules — this is the administrative rulemaking track.
CME's lawsuit is the judicial challenge track, directly questioning the boundaries of the CFTC's approval authority.
This means → the outcomes of both tracks will jointly determine how perpetual contracts are governed in the U.S. — under what rules, by whom — and reshape the competitive landscape between legacy exchanges and emerging platforms.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.