Coinbase and others filed amicus briefs in support of CFTC regulation of single-stock perpetual futures.
BIBIBI
AT A GLANCE
Coinbase and other institutions filed amicus briefs supporting CFTC regulation of U.S. single-stock perpetual futures, in response to the CMA’s lawsuit.
Article
Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, and others have filed amicus briefs supporting CFTC oversight of stock perpetual contracts.
PANews November 10 reports that, according to The Block, Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading, and Paradigm have applied to the court to submit amicus briefs in support of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) authority to regulate single-stock perpetual futures in the United States. This brief is a response to a lawsuit filed last week by the Capital Markets Alliance (CMA), which seeks to overturn the CFTC's approval of these products. The CMA argues that stock perpetual contracts, having no fixed expiration date, should be classified as "securities-based swaps" and cannot be listed on exchanges regulated by the CFTC. These crypto firms counter that the SEC "was involved from the very beginning" of the regulatory process, with the two agencies jointly soliciting public comments. Coinbase General Counsel Molly ...
According to PANews, citing The Block, Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading, and Paradigm have applied to the court to submit amicus briefs.
02
These institutions support the CFTC's authority to regulate U.S. single-stock perpetual futures.
03
The CMA filed a lawsuit last week seeking to overturn the CFTC's approval of these products.
04
The CMA believes that stock perpetual contracts, having no fixed expiration date, should be treated as “securities-based swaps” and cannot be listed on exchanges regulated by the CFTC.
05
These companies countered that the SEC was involved in the regulatory process from the very beginning, and that the two agencies had jointly sought public comment.
AI-assisted interpretation
The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.
The central issue is how to classify these single-stock contracts without a fixed maturity date and whether they can be listed on an exchange regulated by the CFTC. The CMA opposes the existing approval, while the institutions that submitted amicus briefs support the CFTC’s regulatory authority. The original text only states that an application has been filed; it does not mean the court has accepted the briefs or issued a ruling.
Why it matters to readers
This controversy involves regulatory jurisdiction and listing eligibility for single-stock perpetual futures; existing evidence is not yet sufficient to confirm the final outcome.
When reading, distinguish between the institution’s position of support, the filing of an amicus brief, and the court’s ruling; do not treat the filing as indicating that the dispute has been resolved.
Risks and unknowns
The original text does not state whether the court has allowed the filing of amicus curiae briefs, nor does it provide the outcome of the ruling.
The claim that the SEC participates in the regulatory process comes from rebuttals by the companies involved; the materials do not provide independent verification.
The original text is truncated at “Coinbase General Counsel Molly,” so her full name and subsequent remarks cannot be confirmed.
The material does not specify the actual impact of the dispute on product transaction arrangements or market prices.
Related Developments
Loading event timeline…
Related concepts
Single Stock Perpetual Futures
This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
