Key Takeaways
- • The CFTC announced on November 3, 2026 that KalshiEX, Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial Exchange had cleared applications to list stock-linked perpetual futures, which lack a scheduled expiration.
- • Judge Valerie Caproni denied a November 3 emergency trading halt sought by the Capital Markets Alliance Association, but her written order found the challengers likely to succeed on their argument that the CFTC lacks statutory authority.
- • Kalshi's filed framework sets a 15.50% minimum customer margin, equating to roughly $6,452 of exposure per $1,000 of collateral, and a 5% adverse move would cost about 32.3% of starting margin.
- • The classification dispute places the CFTC and SEC's security-futures framework against the alliance's position that indefinite funding-based contracts are security-based swaps, a question still before the New York federal court (No. 1:26-cv-09608).
- • Six firms, including Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, DRW, Jump Trading and Paradigm Operations, joined a November 9 proposed industry brief, while Better Markets objected on November 12 to the CFTC's opposition to its own proposed brief.
Summary
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has cleared three crypto derivatives venues to list perpetual futures tied to individual stocks, opening a contested route for U.S. retail access to these products. Applications from KalshiEX, Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial Exchange were deemed approved on November 2, and the CFTC announced the stock-perpetual route on November 3 in Release 9319-26. Under that release, eligible venues must be designated contract markets and notice-registered with the SEC as national securities exchanges for security futures. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has argued that domestic venues should provide access to these instruments within a regulated framework rather than leaving investors to offshore platforms.
The Capital Markets Alliance Association, whose members include Cboe and Citadel Securities, challenged the approvals in federal court in New York. Its position is that a contract with an indefinite life and recurring funding payments is a security-based swap subject to a different legal framework. On November 3, Judge Valerie Caproni denied the alliance's request for a temporary restraining order because the challengers had not demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm. Her written order nevertheless found the alliance likely to succeed on its claim that the CFTC lacks statutory authority, describing the contracts as appearing not to meet the definition of a security future. The approvals therefore remain in place without a final ruling on the merits.
The mechanics distinguish perpetuals from dated futures. Rather than converging at expiration, a perpetual uses periodic funding payments to keep its price near a reference, with payments flowing from long to short holders when the perpetual trades above the underlying stock and reversing otherwise. Kalshi's September SEC filing (Release 34-106422) describes these terms. Funding is separate from price profit or loss, and the mechanism does not guarantee that the perpetual and the underlying shares trade at identical prices, particularly outside the stock's trading hours.
Leverage is the central risk point for retail customers. Kalshi's filed framework sets a 15.50% minimum customer margin ratio of current market value, implying an exposure multiple of roughly 6.45 at the floor. On $1,000 of margin, a 5% adverse move produces a loss of about $322.58, or 32.3% of collateral, before funding and fees, compared with a $50 loss on a $1,000 unleveraged cash purchase. Brokers may impose their own margin requirements and product restrictions, and the exchange's rulebook, contract specifications and customer agreement govern actual terms.
The dispute is ongoing. Six firms joined a November 9 proposed industry brief, and Better Markets filed a November 12 objection to the CFTC's opposition to its proposed brief. The court's merits decision will determine whether the CFTC had authority over these contracts, a question separate from whether any individual investor's position is suitable.
The Capital Markets Alliance Association, whose members include Cboe and Citadel Securities, challenged the approvals in federal court in New York. Its position is that a contract with an indefinite life and recurring funding payments is a security-based swap subject to a different legal framework. On November 3, Judge Valerie Caproni denied the alliance's request for a temporary restraining order because the challengers had not demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm. Her written order nevertheless found the alliance likely to succeed on its claim that the CFTC lacks statutory authority, describing the contracts as appearing not to meet the definition of a security future. The approvals therefore remain in place without a final ruling on the merits.
The mechanics distinguish perpetuals from dated futures. Rather than converging at expiration, a perpetual uses periodic funding payments to keep its price near a reference, with payments flowing from long to short holders when the perpetual trades above the underlying stock and reversing otherwise. Kalshi's September SEC filing (Release 34-106422) describes these terms. Funding is separate from price profit or loss, and the mechanism does not guarantee that the perpetual and the underlying shares trade at identical prices, particularly outside the stock's trading hours.
Leverage is the central risk point for retail customers. Kalshi's filed framework sets a 15.50% minimum customer margin ratio of current market value, implying an exposure multiple of roughly 6.45 at the floor. On $1,000 of margin, a 5% adverse move produces a loss of about $322.58, or 32.3% of collateral, before funding and fees, compared with a $50 loss on a $1,000 unleveraged cash purchase. Brokers may impose their own margin requirements and product restrictions, and the exchange's rulebook, contract specifications and customer agreement govern actual terms.
The dispute is ongoing. Six firms joined a November 9 proposed industry brief, and Better Markets filed a November 12 objection to the CFTC's opposition to its proposed brief. The court's merits decision will determine whether the CFTC had authority over these contracts, a question separate from whether any individual investor's position is suitable.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.