On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a motion in the Washington D.C. court, requesting the judge to directly dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) against Kalshi—a regulatory agency intervening to try to end the dispute over the definition of a Bitcoin perpetual contract. At the center of the dispute is Kalshi’s BTCPERP, which was approved on May 29, 2026: a cash-settled Bitcoin perpetual contract with no expiration date, recognized as compliant by the CFTC and operating within its regulatory framework. It anchors the Bitcoin spot price through a funding fee mechanism, moving the perpetual structure that has mainly existed on crypto trading platforms, operating outside traditional regulation, into the view of federal oversight for the first time. CME has already established a dominant position in the Bitcoin futures market, yet argues that designs like BTCPERP, which feature "no delivery date and continuous funding payments," should essentially be categorized as swaps rather than futures. If the court adopts this argument, it would mean requiring such products to follow an alternative set of regulatory rules and licensing paths; on the other hand, the CFTC reportedly believes CME is "making a mountain out of a molehill" or "stirring up trouble," trying to use procedural means to defend its determination of the contract as a future. Under the current U.S. system, futures and swaps correspond to different regulatory channels and types of institutions. This tug-of-war over regulatory definitions among CME, Kalshi, and CFTC is not just a technical classification dispute, but a potential institutional battle that could rewrite who can legally provide Bitcoin perpetual products, how terms can be designed, and the competitive boundaries between traditional exchanges and new platforms.

CME Takes Action: Perpetual Contracts Classified as Swaps

After Kalshi’s BTCPERP received CFTC approval on May 29, 2026, the entity that felt truly threatened was CME, which had already taken a dominant position in the compliant derivatives market with its Bitcoin futures. The focus of CME's lawsuit is not on Bitcoin itself, but on what this contract actually is: it has no expiration date, is cash-settled, and continuously adjusts its price via a funding fee mechanism that closely resembles the perpetual contracts long existing on crypto trading platforms. Based on this, CME argues that any arrangement with no delivery date that relies on continuous funding payments to maintain price relationships essentially falls under swaps rather than futures and should fall under an alternative set of regulatory rules and licensing paths, rather than be released by the CFTC as a traditional futures product.

In CME's narrative, this is an action to "defend the boundaries of regulatory classification," but the underlying interest considerations are equally clear: if a CFTC-regulated prediction market platform like Kalshi can introduce a perpetual structure under the futures framework, the design space for Bitcoin derivatives and the types of participating institutions would suddenly be opened up; traditional futures exchanges would no longer be the sole compliant entry point. Whether perpetuals are classified as futures or swaps is not just a semantic dispute but directly relates to who is qualified to replicate the BTCPERP model, under which type of license similar products can be introduced, and whether CME can continue to maintain its dominant position in the regulated Bitcoin derivatives market.

CFTC's Dual Role: Approver Becomes Defendant

At the moment Kalshi's BTCPERP contract was approved, the CFTC was still the federal approval authority holding control over the product. On May 29, 2026, it was precisely the CFTC that signed off on allowing this cash-settled contract with no expiration date and a funding fee that anchors the Bitcoin spot price to enter the regulated derivatives market. However, as CME took the classification dispute to court, the same agency quickly transformed from "decider" to "defendant," needing to maintain the boundary between futures and swaps within the regulatory framework while also defending its technical determinations and approval processes in legal proceedings.

This identity transformation was further amplified on September 8: the CFTC officially submitted a motion in the Washington D.C. court requesting to dismiss CME's lawsuit against BTCPERP. According to public reports, its stance was summarized as viewing the case as "making a mountain out of a molehill" or "stirring up trouble." This step serves both as a procedural defensive measure and as a signal of authority—if the court accepts and overturns its classification judgment, the CFTC's credibility in approving Bitcoin derivatives could be fundamentally rewritten; however, if it downplays CME's concerns too lightly, it could be seen as neglecting reasonable compliance concerns of traditional institutions. While the judgment result remains unpublished, how the CFTC redraws lines between regulatory technical judgments, its own authority, and institutional challenges from industry leaders is itself a key suspense in this Bitcoin perpetual regulatory dispute.

Kalshi's Perpetual Contract Approved: New Compliance Path Opens

If the debate stays at the regulatory technical level, Kalshi's BTCPERP itself becomes the most tangible battlefield example. It is designed as a cash-settled contract with no expiration date, continuously anchoring the Bitcoin spot price through its funding fee mechanism, and almost completely replicating the perpetual structure that previously existed solely on crypto trading platforms—this time, however, placed within the CFTC regulatory licensing framework. On May 29, 2026, the CFTC greenlit this structure, effectively acknowledging within its own system for the first time that such "non-expiring Bitcoin price bets" can exist in the form of futures, sending a clear signal to the market: perpetual structures need not only remain in regulatory gray areas.

For other institutions hoping to operate within a compliant framework, this approval provides a replicable template. Kalshi, as a prediction market platform, demonstrates that as long as it meets CFTC requirements in terms of settlement methods, funding fee mechanisms, and risk management, perpetual products can also be accepted through the futures licensing path without having to entirely replicate a swap regulatory framework. The real key lies in whether the court ultimately supports the CFTC's classification judgment of BTCPERP as a future: if this conclusion is stabilized, it means Bitcoin perpetual contracts would no longer be exclusive to crypto exchanges but would become a compliant category contended over by traditional futures exchanges and new prediction platforms, and CME’s years of building a moat around Bitcoin futures would first face structurally similar competitors on the same regulatory path.

Behind the Definition Dispute: Reordering of Discourse Power in Bitcoin Derivatives

Within the U.S. regulatory framework, futures and swaps follow two distinct licensing and rule paths, corresponding to entirely different types of institutions and risk management templates. CME insists that a structure with "no delivery date and continuous funding payments" is more akin to swaps, essentially competing over which type of licensed institution should dominate such products: if the court eventually accepts the label of swaps, Bitcoin perpetuals will fall under a regulatory track closer to swaps, raising the corresponding participation thresholds, compliance costs, and risk control requirements, thus locking the product design space within the existing swap framework; conversely, if the existing futures determination approved by the CFTC is maintained, this structure with no expiration date and funding fees anchoring the spot will formally become a tool available under the futures licensing system, allowing exchanges and clearinghouses with futures qualifications to replicate and expand BTCPERP under compliance conditions.

This definition dispute, therefore, concerns not just the fate of a product from Kalshi but also who can transform the innovation dividends of Bitcoin perpetuals into their own compliant assets. For a long time, these contracts have mainly been offered by crypto trading platforms in a largely unregulated environment. Funding fees, leverage ratios, and risk controls can be highly market-adjusted; once futures recognition is solidified, traditional futures exchanges and regulated prediction market platforms will redivide this field with unified regulatory standards. What might emerge in the future is that futures exchanges will incorporate perpetual structures into standardized contract matrices, prediction markets will continue to maneuver in scenes and user reach, while crypto exchanges aiming at U.S. users will be forced to choose between "maintaining existing flexibility" and "aligning with licensed models," with the discourse power over Bitcoin derivatives gradually flowing back from technical innovators to institutions that hold regulatory licenses and compliance resources.

Court Ruling Pending: How Platforms and Products Align

Currently, the Washington D.C. court has yet to publicly rule on the CFTC's dismissal motion, and whether Bitcoin perpetuals are regarded as futures or swaps within the U.S. regulatory system remains "pending." If the court supports the CFTC and dismisses the lawsuit, the BTCPERP contract approved on May 29, 2026, will establish itself as "qualified futures," with the cash settlement, no expiration date, and funding fee mechanism structure implicitly permitted under futures rules. The CFTC's authority in approving perpetual structures would be strengthened, and institutions looking to create similar products would be more likely to submit futures contracts to the CFTC following this path rather than circumventing the swap licensing and other regulatory channels. Conversely, if the court allows the lawsuit to enter the substantive trial phase, the legal debate between CME and CFTC regarding contract classification will be prolonged, the boundaries between futures and swaps under the U.S. framework will be repeatedly questioned, and institutions aiming to introduce perpetual structures into compliant scenarios will need to deliberately leave room for "futures versions" and "swap versions" in product design to accommodate possible legal distinctions. For crypto derivatives projects and users, this is not merely a lawsuit concerning the interests of two institutions, but a potential watershed event that could reshape the regulatory patterns of perpetual contracts. What truly needs close attention is the final characterization of Bitcoin perpetuals in terms of contract classification and compliance paths in the U.S., which lies behind this seemingly procedural dispute.

Join our community to discuss together and grow stronger!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。