A group of digital asset companies has filed a letter supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a legal dispute over stock perpetual futures. The filing landed in the Southern District of New York. Coinbase Global, Kalshi, Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading, and Paradigm signed on.
The dispute
Capital Markets Alliance sued earlier this month. It is challenging CFTC approval of open-ended futures contracts tied to individual stocks. These products mirror crypto perpetuals, which have no expiry date. The CMA says it has backing from traditional finance firms, including Cboe and Citadel Securities. It argues equity versions should fall under SEC jurisdiction, not the CFTC.
Why crypto firms are involved
Coinbase, Kalshi, and Payward have applications to list U.S. stock perps. Those applications were deemed approved on Nov. 2. The support letter likely aims to defend the CFTC’s authority and the approvals. A CFTC spokesperson called the CMA action troubling. The spokesperson said markets should be governed by law, not litigation campaigns meant to block new products.
What comes next
The case puts attention on where stock perpetuals fit in U.S. regulation. The SEC and CFTC have overlapping roles, but the line is not always clear. A court ruling could shape how products are listed and traded. For now, the companies backing the CFTC are making their position known. The lawsuit is still in its early stages. Perhaps the biggest question is whether stock perps will be treated like derivatives or securities. The answer may depend on how the court reads existing law.
Market participants are watching closely. The CFTC has not said much beyond its initial comment. The CMA has not responded publicly to the support letter. No hearing date has been set. The filing shows crypto firms are willing to weigh in on traditional finance fights. It also shows how crypto-style products are pushing into stock markets. That overlap is likely to produce more legal tests.
For now, the fight is over approval and jurisdiction. The outcome could affect products already deemed approved. It could also affect future applications. The companies involved did not offer more comment beyond the filing. The case is before the Southern District of New York.
