Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to update rules that they say were written for intermediary-heavy markets, not non-custodial onchain systems. The Block reported on July 9 that the groups responded to the CFTC and SEC request for information by arguing that software, front ends and onchain matching should not automatically be treated like traditional brokers, exchanges or clearinghouses.
For traders, the important point is market structure. If U.S. regulators create a clearer route for onchain derivatives, liquidity could shift toward regulated integrations, but compliance costs, venue access and product design would also change. If regulators keep applying legacy categories too broadly, some activity may stay offshore or remain concentrated in less transparent venues.
The debate also matters because perpetual futures are already moving from a crypto-only product toward regulated U.S. market infrastructure. The CFTC has previously granted no-action relief connected to Phantom’s self-custodial wallet interface for regulated derivatives access, while the agency is also receiving comments about 24/7 markets and crypto perpetuals.
A trading-aware read is cautious: a friendlier rulebook can improve venue quality, but it does not remove smart-contract, oracle, liquidation, funding-rate or governance risk. Watch for whether policy clarity leads to deeper books and better margin protections, not just new token narratives.
Sources: The Block; CFTC Phantom no-action release; Federal Register RFI.
Risk notice: Crypto derivatives involve leverage, liquidation, platform, custody and regulatory risk. This article is educational and is not legal, tax or investment advice.
原创文章，作者：financial transaction，如若转载，请注明出处：https://www.fanbi.net/archives/1901
