HPC Urges CFTC to Approve Oil Perpetual Contracts in U.S.

HPC and trade[XYZ] propose bringing energy perpetual contracts to U.S. markets, citing $500B in volume and the benefits of 24/7 blockchain infrastructure.

The proposal comes at a time when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is already exploring whether such instruments can be integrated into regulated American markets.

From Crypto Derivatives to the Oil Market

The initiative represents an attempt to port one of the crypto market’s most recognizable tools over to traditional commodities. Unlike a standard futures contract, a perpetual contract has no fixed expiration date. Its price is kept aligned with the reference market through periodic funding payments between participants.

The CFTC has already taken its first regulatory step in this direction. In May, the commission outlined its position on listing perpetual contracts, allowing an instrument tracking the spot price of Bitcoin to be offered as a futures contract on a regulated U.S. exchange. However, for other asset classes, the regulator preferred a case-by-case review.

Energy commodities are the next potential test. In June, the CFTC began a consultation on perpetual contracts for physically deliverable or storable energy assets, including crude oil. The regulator is examining issues surrounding reference prices, clearing, market manipulation, customer protection, and continuous trading. The comment period was subsequently extended to August 26.

$500 Billion Already Flowed Through trade[XYZ] Markets

trade[XYZ], identified by HPC as the largest external operator of perpetual markets on Hyperliquid, already offers instruments tied to WTI, Brent, and Henry Hub natural gas.

According to the comment filed with the CFTC, these markets have generated over $500 billion in cumulative trading volume since their launch in October 2025.

The difference in position sizing is also part of the argument. A standard WTI future represents 1,000 barrels, or approximately $70,000 in notional exposure at the prices cited by HPC. In contrast, the median oil trade during off-market hours on trade[XYZ] is roughly $1,300.

This could broaden access to hedging for participants who do not require the large, standardized positions found in the traditional futures market.

However, HPC does not propose perpetual contracts as a replacement for dated futures. The latter remain essential for physical delivery, specific months, and trading along the price curve. The perpetual model is instead aimed at participants seeking continuous price exposure without the need to periodically roll positions over to the next contract.

Weekends Provide the Primary Argument

One of HPC’s strongest arguments involves the risk created when geopolitical events hit the oil market while regulated U.S. exchanges are closed.

The organization pointed to turmoil in the Middle East earlier this year as an example. While traditional oil futures were not trading during parts of the weekend, participants outside the U.S. utilized oil-linked perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid.

According to HPC, approximately two-thirds of the movement between the Friday close and the subsequent benchmark opening was already reflected on-chain before traditional trading resumed.

The organization’s own research further demonstrated that in nearly 75% of analyzed weekend closures, the price of the crude oil perpetual contract ended up closer to the subsequent index opening price than to its Friday closing price. This is a claim by HPC and does not represent a conclusion by the CFTC.

Stablecoins Could Become Part of the Infrastructure

The proposal goes beyond simply authorizing a new type of derivative.

HPC and trade[XYZ] want the CFTC to adopt a technology-neutral approach, confirming that regulated exchanges and clearing organizations can operate 24/7 and clarifying how concepts like “business days” should apply to markets that never close.

More significantly for the crypto industry, the proposal suggests that stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets should be recognized as eligible collateral for cleared derivatives. The argument is practical: a market that functions over the weekend requires collateral that can move over the weekend.

The group also wants U.S. regulated markets to be able to use blockchain infrastructure for order execution, margin, clearing, settlement, and record-keeping, provided they comply with existing regulatory principles.

The Regulatory Question Remains Larger Than the Tech

The on-chain model offers continuous margin recalculation and a public record of orders, trades, and liquidations. HPC noted that standard “order book” liquidations have handled 97.9% of all liquidated notional volume on trade[XYZ] markets to date.

For the CFTC, however, the question is whether this same model can meet market integrity and customer protection requirements for assets linked to physical markets.

This is where oil is more complex than Bitcoin. The price of energy commodities depends on physical delivery, storage inventories, transport constraints, and various regional indices. Therefore, the CFTC is considering energy perpetuals separately from already authorized digital products.

The proposal by HPC and trade[XYZ] does not mean the U.S. has approved such instruments yet. It presents the regulator with a broader choice: whether the American derivatives market should gradually adopt infrastructure that first evolved in crypto, or if the traditional model with set trading sessions will remain the standard for physical commodities.