Payward, the parent company behind Kraken, is trying to transfer its familiar compliance derivatives logic to a public blockchain. Recently, Payward disclosed plans with its CFTC-regulated subsidiary Bitnomial: to launch a perpetual futures market for U.S. clients deployed on the Hyperliquid public blockchain utilizing the HIP-3 licensed market architecture, created, owned, and managed by Bitnomial as the HIP-3 deployment entity, with an on-chain order book matching and recording transactions. If current public information progresses, Payward will become the first registered exchange or clearing house to establish a market for U.S. clients on this protocol, making the combination of “registered license + on-chain perpetual” transition from technical conception to institutional testing ground. Unlike completely permissionless decentralized derivatives protocols, this licensed architecture allows compliant institutions to establish a controllable market on-chain, while also being exposed to on-chain price, funding cost, and liquidity environments. The specific launch time and product details have yet to be announced, but once the product officially launches, it will inevitably redraw the regulatory boundary between CeFi and DeFi derivatives, creating new arbitrage opportunities and games between the institutional compliance framework and the open on-chain market.
Compliance Exchanges Entering the On-Chain Perpetual Battlefield
In this pathway, what is written on-chain is not the “Kraken perpetual segment,” but a specified market created, owned, and managed by Bitnomial as the HIP-3 deployment entity on the Hyperliquid public blockchain, with Payward standing behind the scenes to launch the product for U.S. clients through this CFTC-regulated entity. The order book matching and trading records of the market itself operate directly on-chain, but who can open this market, who can adjust parameters, and who bears operational responsibility are centralized in the qualified deployment entity Bitnomial, rather than scattered among anonymous developers or autonomous communities.
Compared to traditional centralized contract exchanges, this architecture moves the technical foundation of matching and settlement to the public blockchain while retaining the permission barrier of “who can open the market, who is responsible for compliance.” It is different from completely permissionless decentralized protocols and also from traditional contract platforms that package everything in their own data centers, embedding regulatory and compliance roles into the protocol market creation layer. For this reason, according to a single source, Payward is regarded as the first registered exchange or clearing house to deploy a market for U.S. clients on this protocol, and this identity of “the first compliant market adopting HIP-3” is seen as a milestone for compliant institutions officially stepping into the on-chain perpetual derivatives battlefield.
How CFTC Regulatory Licenses Envelop On-Chain Protocols
In this design, Bitnomial, described as a CFTC-regulated entity, has become the real “front stage” party: it is not just simply accessing a third-party public blockchain product, but personally acting as the HIP-3 deployment entity, creating, owning, and managing the corresponding perpetual market on the Hyperliquid public blockchain. For regulatory narratives, this is equivalent to stuffing the originally abstract on-chain protocol into a corporate shell that is already within the U.S. compliant derivatives framework—everything in market operations is nominally “underneath” Bitnomial's license. In the future, whether it is trading rules, risk control, or customer protection, the primary responsible party will naturally be pointed to this entity already registered in the CFTC system, rather than to an unaccountable open-source code repository.
The real tension emerges at the interface level: the on-chain order book is responsible for matching and recording transactions, making all transaction data publicly verifiable on the public blockchain, which is obviously different from the closed-loop model of traditional regulated futures markets that complete matching within their own matching systems or off-exchange platforms, and then report data to regulators. The question becomes—under the CFTC's perspective, is the on-chain order book seen as a “controlled core system,” or treated as outsourced infrastructure, with Bitnomial fully responsible for its outcomes? The current brief does not indicate that this arrangement has received any form of formal approval from the CFTC, nor is there any special regulatory guidance explaining how the regulators view such a licensed on-chain derivatives market; the public domain also lacks clear documents from the CFTC regarding this type of architecture, which means that the so-called “license wraps the protocol” path is still in a gray area, and to what extent Bitnomial can cover on-chain business with its existing license can only be regarded as a compliance experiment with high uncertainty until regulators provide clear responses.
Compliance Entry and Risk Redefinition for U.S. Users
When Payward clearly labeled this HIP-3-based on-chain perpetual futures market as “for U.S. clients,” a long-closed path appeared in the narrative for the first time: U.S. users are no longer only able to explore on-chain derivatives outside the compliance framework, but have the opportunity to access the order book and position records running on the Hyperliquid public blockchain directly through the entry of a regulated parent company. Trading matches and position changes are fully written on-chain; for users, this is both a verifiable price and transaction history and a potential data foundation that could be regarded as “compliance records” in the future, but the premise is how regulators interpret this chain's trajectory, which is still not formed.
The real uncertainty focuses on “who can enter” and “how they are perceived once inside.” The brief clearly points out the entry requirements for U.S. users—including KYC intensity, regional and identity restrictions, whether to set qualified investor thresholds—all of which remain unanswered. Also missing are the fee structure, leverage multiples, and specific contract varieties, making it difficult for potential users to judge their tax reporting burden, compliance exposure, and overall risk exposure in advance. Under the high transparency of the on-chain order book, every order placed and closed can become a direct source of evidence for future regulatory, tax, or judicial scrutiny. As U.S. users pursue a publicly visible and verifiable trading experience on a public blockchain, they are also forced to confront a new trade-off: the moment they access on-chain derivatives through a compliance entry, they are not only choosing a market structure but also actively exposing their risks and compliance fate more to the intersection points where on-chain and regulatory may converge.
The Boundaries Between Compliance Platforms and DeFi Derivatives Are Forced to Shift
When Payward first brought the identities of U.S. registered exchanges and clearinghouses onto the order book of decentralized protocols like Hyperliquid, the originally clear regulatory demarcation line between CeFi and DeFi was forced to shift a tiny step on-chain. The industry background is already seeing this step as a demonstration: if CFTC-regulated entities like Bitnomial can create, own, and manage an on-chain perpetual futures market on HIP-3, then other compliant platforms can hardly evade this route by claiming “technical uncontrollability” or “regulatory non-access.” The licensed architecture of HIP-3 provides them with a narrative: the market operates on a public blockchain, and matching and transaction records are public, but the entry, market rules, and governance rights are firmly held in the hands of the licensed deployment entity, representing a “controlled on-chain” technical arrangement that is not equivalent to completely permissionless traditional DeFi derivatives protocols.
Because this hybrid model is still a first attempt, how regulators classify it has become the biggest uncertainty surrounding Payward's plans. Currently, there is no public information indicating that the CFTC has formally approved such on-chain perpetual markets, nor has it issued any special regulatory documents. Within the existing framework, whether it is viewed as a technical upgrade of traditional contract trading facilities or needs to be categorized as a new type of derivatives venue is still an unsettled question. If more compliant institutions emulate the licensed model of HIP-3 and push licensed entities onto the chain to become “market deployment entities,” the regulatory boundaries could shift from a binary distinction of “on-chain or off-chain” to a greater focus on “whether deployment and control are within the existing compliance system.” In this process, Payward's attempt will either be written into the regulatory eye as a case of “compliance innovation,” or classified as a potential regulatory arbitrage path rewriting business territory through on-chain protocols; these two entirely different judgments will directly determine the fate of this technical route among U.S. compliant platforms.
The Next Round of Regulatory Offense and Defense Regarding On-Chain Derivatives Has Not Yet Materialized
By utilizing Hyperliquid's HIP-3 licensed architecture to put “regulated entities deploying perpetual futures markets on public chains” on the table, Payward and Bitnomial are essentially trying to incorporate on-chain derivatives into the existing compliance landscape: the market creation and management rights held by CFTC-regulated entities, while trading is completely matched and settled on the public blockchain order book. If this combination succeeds, it will provide a replicable path for other U.S. compliant platforms. However, as of now, the outside world only knows they “plan to launch” this market: the specific timeline for launch has not been disclosed, the underlying assets of the first perpetual contracts, fee structures, leverage multiples, and other key product parameters are all absent, and the entry standards for U.S. clients, KYC, and risk grading systems have not been publicly explained, nor is there any cited CFTC approval or formal statement. The brief even explicitly avoids suggesting that this proposal has received regulatory approval. The next key observation points will focus on three aspects: first, whether regulators provide a positive response or impose additional constraints to define the boundaries of “regulated institutions deploying derivatives on-chain;” second, whether other U.S. compliant platforms follow suit with similar licensed on-chain market architectures to form an industry-level consensus; third, how Hyperliquid and similar protocols continue to adapt their authority, risk control, and information disclosure mechanisms to meet the evolving compliance demands while maintaining on-chain matching characteristics.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
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。
