Blab Crypto
CFTC and SEC Open Comment Period to Clarify Crypto Perpetual Futures and Prediction-Market Definitions
On June 18 2026 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a 60‑day public‑comment process aimed at tightening key derivatives definitions under Title VII of the Dodd‑Frank Act. The agencies are asking the market for guidance on how to classify swaps, security‑based swaps, mixed swaps, event contracts, and alternative compliance pathways.
The request is a direct answer to the regulatory fog that has clouded crypto‑style perpetual futures and prediction‑market products. How a contract is labeled determines which regulator has jurisdiction, which venues can list it, and which rulebook governs margin, reporting and retail access.
Kalshi’s recent approval of a Bitcoin‑referenced perpetual futures contract illustrates the stakes. On May 29 2026 the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP under Regulation 40.3. The contract is cash‑settled, has no fixed expiration, and uses continuous funding payments to keep the contract price in line with the spot price of Bitcoin. Treating the product as a futures contract, rather than a swap, gives the venue a path to list the product on a U.S. regulated exchange.
CME Group’s lawsuit against the CFTC, filed earlier in the year, challenges that decision. CME argues the contract should be regulated as a swap, which would impose different clearing and margin requirements. The court case has spotlighted the broader question of whether crypto‑style perps can fit within the U.S. futures framework.
In addition to the Kalshi case, the CFTC announced a foreign‑futures path for certain crypto‑asset perpetuals tied to Coinbase Financial Markets’ Deribit affiliate. The agency issued no‑action relief for customer‑owned crypto and stablecoin margin transfers, indicating that foreign‑board‑of‑trade products could be brought onto U.S. markets under a futures classification.
The comment request also tackles event contracts, a category that includes prediction‑market contracts on specified outcomes such as elections or sporting events. On June 10 2026 the CFTC published a proposal to replace the blanket ban on five types of event contracts with a discretionary, contract‑by‑contract review. The proposal is part of a broader debate over how prediction markets should be regulated.
The agencies’ joint memorandum from March 2026 reaffirmed a commitment to coordinate on product definitions, crypto assets, emerging technologies, alternative compliance, data sharing and cross‑market oversight. The memorandum also preserved each agency’s statutory authority, underscoring that comment letters cannot change the law.
Practical implications of the forthcoming definitions are significant. If a crypto‑perp is classified as a futures contract, it can be listed on U.S. futures exchanges, subject to futures clearing and margin rules, and potentially offered to retail traders. If it is treated as a swap, it would fall under the CFTC’s swap‑clearing regime, which has different capital and reporting requirements. For event contracts, a futures classification could allow prediction‑market operators to list contracts on regulated exchanges, while a different classification could keep them in a niche regulatory space.
The comment period will likely see submissions from exchanges, market makers, prediction‑market operators, crypto platforms and groups focused on gaming, state jurisdiction, market integrity and investor protection. The agencies have indicated that the first set of comment letters will provide the most useful signals.
Until the comment period closes, the regulatory landscape for crypto‑style perpetual futures and prediction‑market contracts remains unsettled. The agencies’ next steps will shape whether new products can enter U.S. regulated venues under a unified rulebook or whether they will continue to be classified under legacy categories that impose heavier regulatory burdens.
The outcome will affect not only the launch of new crypto derivatives but also the broader strategy of U.S. exchanges seeking to offer products that mirror the popularity of offshore platforms while complying with domestic oversight.
The request is a direct answer to the regulatory fog that has clouded crypto‑style perpetual futures and prediction‑market products. How a contract is labeled determines which regulator has jurisdiction, which venues can list it, and which rulebook governs margin, reporting and retail access.
Kalshi’s recent approval of a Bitcoin‑referenced perpetual futures contract illustrates the stakes. On May 29 2026 the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP under Regulation 40.3. The contract is cash‑settled, has no fixed expiration, and uses continuous funding payments to keep the contract price in line with the spot price of Bitcoin. Treating the product as a futures contract, rather than a swap, gives the venue a path to list the product on a U.S. regulated exchange.
CME Group’s lawsuit against the CFTC, filed earlier in the year, challenges that decision. CME argues the contract should be regulated as a swap, which would impose different clearing and margin requirements. The court case has spotlighted the broader question of whether crypto‑style perps can fit within the U.S. futures framework.
In addition to the Kalshi case, the CFTC announced a foreign‑futures path for certain crypto‑asset perpetuals tied to Coinbase Financial Markets’ Deribit affiliate. The agency issued no‑action relief for customer‑owned crypto and stablecoin margin transfers, indicating that foreign‑board‑of‑trade products could be brought onto U.S. markets under a futures classification.
The comment request also tackles event contracts, a category that includes prediction‑market contracts on specified outcomes such as elections or sporting events. On June 10 2026 the CFTC published a proposal to replace the blanket ban on five types of event contracts with a discretionary, contract‑by‑contract review. The proposal is part of a broader debate over how prediction markets should be regulated.
The agencies’ joint memorandum from March 2026 reaffirmed a commitment to coordinate on product definitions, crypto assets, emerging technologies, alternative compliance, data sharing and cross‑market oversight. The memorandum also preserved each agency’s statutory authority, underscoring that comment letters cannot change the law.
Practical implications of the forthcoming definitions are significant. If a crypto‑perp is classified as a futures contract, it can be listed on U.S. futures exchanges, subject to futures clearing and margin rules, and potentially offered to retail traders. If it is treated as a swap, it would fall under the CFTC’s swap‑clearing regime, which has different capital and reporting requirements. For event contracts, a futures classification could allow prediction‑market operators to list contracts on regulated exchanges, while a different classification could keep them in a niche regulatory space.
The comment period will likely see submissions from exchanges, market makers, prediction‑market operators, crypto platforms and groups focused on gaming, state jurisdiction, market integrity and investor protection. The agencies have indicated that the first set of comment letters will provide the most useful signals.
Until the comment period closes, the regulatory landscape for crypto‑style perpetual futures and prediction‑market contracts remains unsettled. The agencies’ next steps will shape whether new products can enter U.S. regulated venues under a unified rulebook or whether they will continue to be classified under legacy categories that impose heavier regulatory burdens.
The outcome will affect not only the launch of new crypto derivatives but also the broader strategy of U.S. exchanges seeking to offer products that mirror the popularity of offshore platforms while complying with domestic oversight.
