Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, DRW, Jump Trading and Paradigm have sought permission to submit an amicus brief supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority over single-stock perpetual futures in the United States, according to Cointelegraph's November 10 report.
The companies are backing a regulatory route for contracts that combine individual-stock exposure with the perpetual structure familiar to crypto traders. Seeking permission to submit a brief is a procedural step, not a court decision approving their position. The commercial stakes are concrete: exchanges want to extend that trading model into equities, while opponents dispute whether contracts without an expiration date qualify as security futures.
A contract without expiry meets a delivery requirement
The classification dispute turns on the structure of the instrument.
In an October 14 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cboe argued that the proposed stock perpetuals fall outside the statutory definition of security futures because they lack future delivery. Its objection covers proposals from Coinbase Derivatives, Bitnomial, KalshiEX and North American Derivatives Exchange.
Cboe's argument distinguishes periodic funding payments from final settlement. A payment that helps maintain a contract's relationship to a stock price, it argues, does not satisfy the delivery requirement. Cboe asked the SEC to require a fuller review and reject the proposals.
The letter also raises a surveillance objection. Cboe argues that stock-perpetual transactions would sit outside the Consolidated Audit Trail, even when related hedges appear in securities markets.
These objections explain the tension behind the latest industry intervention. The firms supporting CFTC authority want their proposed products to fit within an available regulatory framework. Cboe challenges that framework's application to the contracts themselves. Resolving that disagreement requires an answer about contract design; a general preference for more regulated trading cannot settle it.
Coinbase's proposal already reaches both agencies
Coinbase's proposal gives both the CFTC and the SEC a role.
The September 18 notice describing Coinbase Derivatives' proposal records filings with both agencies. Coinbase submitted the rules as a CFTC-designated contract market and through its notice registration as a national securities exchange for security futures products.
Its proposed contracts are cash settled, have no fixed expiration date and convey no ownership of the underlying security. A trader would obtain contractual exposure to a stock's price without receiving the stock.
The proposed rulebook addresses that separation in operational detail. It includes corporate-action adjustments, funding payments and procedures for trading halts. Customer margin requirements were reserved for a separate filing.
Those provisions help explain what is at stake in the court fight. Adapting an equity-linked derivative to an exchange rulebook requires decisions about settlement and the treatment of events affecting the underlying company.
The filing also points to a practical consequence of the classification dispute. If the legal foundation changes, exchanges may have to revisit the rules under which they intend to list these instruments. The outcome could affect how the contracts operate, as well as which regulator oversees them.
Payward has a specific product plan at stake
Payward, the parent company of Kraken, described its own intended rollout on September 18. Through Bitnomial, it proposed starting with perpetual futures linked to 10 individual stocks and working toward 24/5 trading for eligible US customers.
Its announcement described leveraged long or short exposure without ownership of the underlying shares. Positions would have no expiration date, eliminating the need to replace a contract simply because its maturity arrives.
Payward identified funding as the mechanism intended to keep futures prices aligned with the underlying market. Keeping a position open would still require maintaining margin.
Those terms explain the product's appeal and its financial demands. Removing scheduled expiry removes one reason to close or replace a position, while ongoing funding and collateral requirements remain. Payward's disclosure warns that losses may exceed the initial investment.
The company presented longer trading hours as a way to respond to company news after traditional markets close. Those hours remain an objective of its proposed rollout, with no guarantee of availability from the new court submission.
Its participation therefore has a direct commercial basis: Payward has already described the contracts and customer access it wants the regulatory process to support.
Overview
Six firms have sought to support CFTC authority over single-stock perpetual futures through an amicus submission. Their intervention adds industry support to a contested route into US equity derivatives.
Existing proposals show the substance behind the dispute: cash-settled stock exposure, no fixed expiry and exchange rules covering funding and corporate actions. Cboe disputes the security-futures classification. Payward's announced starting plan covers 10 stocks.
