WASHINGTON, May 29, 2026 — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a policy statement outlining its views on the listing of perpetual contracts, stating that perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not contemplated in the Commission’s approval of KalshiEX LLC’s BTCPERP futures contract should be submitted for review and approval under the voluntary product approval process set out in Commission Regulation 40.3.
The policy statement was issued alongside the Commission’s order approving Kalshi’s bitcoin-linked perpetual futures contract and provides guidance on how the agency intends to evaluate perpetual contracts referencing other types of underlying assets.
Commission outlines approach to perpetual contracts
According to the statement, perpetual contracts are derivative contracts that have no fixed expiration date and instead rely on a periodic funding-rate mechanism to maintain relative price parity with the underlying asset’s spot price. The Commission noted that perpetual contracts have become a dominant form of crypto derivatives trading globally, while regulatory uncertainty has contributed to much of that activity developing outside the United States.
The Commission noted that it has sought public input on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading through requests for comment issued in 2025 and referenced broader policy discussions concerning digital asset markets.
Kalshi approval does not extend to all perpetual contracts
The policy statement emphasizes that the Commission’s approval of Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract does not automatically extend to perpetual contracts referencing other asset classes. Instead, the Commission said perpetual contracts involving assets not contemplated in the Kalshi order should be submitted for review and approval under Commission Regulation 40.3.
The statement identifies agricultural products, precious metals, equity securities, and narrow-based security indexes as examples of asset classes that raise distinct considerations and may require separate analysis. The Commission noted that each asset class presents unique characteristics that merit independent review.
Funding-rate mechanisms raise distinct regulatory considerations
The Commission explained that traditional futures contracts rely on expiration to achieve convergence with the underlying spot price, while perpetual contracts depend on a funding-rate mechanism that creates economic incentives for market participants to keep contract prices aligned with the underlying asset.
According to the statement, this structural difference raises questions relating to market structure, customer protection, market resilience during periods of stress, and compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles. The Commission also highlighted considerations relating to susceptibility to manipulation, noting that a perpetual contract’s reference price must remain reliable throughout the life of the contract rather than only at expiration.
Commission favors case-by-case review
The Commission acknowledged that registrants generally may self-certify new products under Commission Regulation 40.2. However, it said the public interest is best served by requiring perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not contemplated in the Kalshi order to undergo Commission review and approval under Regulation 40.3 because of the products’ novel characteristics and the regulatory questions they raise.
The statement says the approval process promotes transparency, facilitates engagement between Commission staff and registrants during product development, and provides greater regulatory clarity for market participants and the public.
Why it matters
The policy statement provides the clearest indication to date of how the CFTC intends to approach perpetual contracts beyond the bitcoin-linked product approved for listing on May 29. While the Commission approved Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract, it signaled that perpetual contracts referencing other asset classes should be submitted for case-by-case review, reflecting the agency’s view that the regulatory considerations surrounding perpetual contracts vary depending on the characteristics of the underlying asset.
