Coinbase, Kalshi and Other Firms Back CFTC in Fight Over Stock Perpetuals

A dispute over who may regulate perpetual futures linked to individual US stocks is drawing some of crypto’s most prominent companies into federal court. Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken parent Payward, DRW, Jump Trading and Paradigm have sought permission to support the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in litigation brought by the Capital Markets Alliance Association. Their proposed intervention follows approvals for new stock-linked perpetual products earlier this month.

TL;DR: Six firms filed a proposed friend-of-the-court brief backing the CFTC’s authority in the single-stock perpetual futures case. A judge earlier denied emergency relief but questioned the regulator’s legal basis for the approvals. The court has not delivered a final ruling on whether the products should remain available.

Why the legal issue is more complicated than crypto versus Wall Street

A perpetual futures contract provides economic exposure to price changes without a preset expiration date. It is a familiar structure in cryptocurrency markets. Applying the design to an individual listed US company raises a separate statutory question: which agency’s rules govern the product, and what obligations attach to the exchange listing it?

The Capital Markets Alliance argues that these contracts belong within the securities-law framework rather than under the CFTC’s treatment of security futures. The companies supporting the regulator argue that the law permits the agency’s approach and that blocking the products would limit US-listed alternatives to offshore markets. Those are legal positions advanced in an active dispute, not findings that either side has finally won.

The stakes extend beyond where an order is matched. Classification influences customer protections, margin rules, market surveillance and whether a new product can lawfully be offered to eligible participants.

The judge’s November 3 order matters

In the published federal court order, Judge Valerie Caproni denied a request for a temporary restraining order. That means the plaintiff did not obtain an immediate halt at that stage. The reasoning, however, was not a broad endorsement of the CFTC’s authority. The judge indicated the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the statutory question but had not demonstrated the imminent irreparable harm required for emergency relief.

That distinction is essential. A failed emergency application is not the same as a judgment that the products comply with the law. A preliminary-injunction dispute and the broader merits can still produce further decisions, and both sides may submit additional arguments.

Tokenized shares and stock perps are not equivalent

NewsBTC recently examined the NYSE’s proposed tokenized securities venue. That project is about representing and settling security ownership. A stock perpetual gives a trader a derivative claim whose value is linked to a share; it does not necessarily transfer ownership of that share or its voting and dividend rights.

Likewise, our coverage of Ripple Prime’s round-the-clock RWA-linked swaps illustrates how conventional markets can be referenced by crypto-native derivatives. The legal treatment of each product depends on its structure and jurisdiction, not simply the fact that it can trade 24 hours a day.

What happens now

The immediate questions are whether the judge accepts the proposed outside briefs, how the plaintiff’s latest reply addresses the statutory objections, and what relief the court considers appropriate. There is no basis to describe the matter as settled or to assume that every stock perp listing has permanent authorization.

The case is a serious test of how US financial regulation adapts to perpetual trading conventions. Its outcome could influence the shape of future listings, but the facts today support a narrower statement: the CFTC’s approvals are being challenged, and the industry is organizing a legal defense.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.