Kalshi is trying to push perpetual futures out of crypto’s sandbox and into two very different U.S. markets, a broad stock index and copper. The filings are real, the contracts are not approved yet, and the legal fight over what perpetuals even are is still unresolved.
- Kalshi filed two perpetual futures submissions with the CFTC on Aug. 18.
- The proposed contracts are US500, tied to a broad U.S. equity benchmark, and COPPERPERP, tied to copper.
- Nothing can begin trading unless the CFTC clears the filings.
- The move lands while the futures-versus-swaps fight over perpetual futures is still very much alive.
Perpetual futures are futures-style contracts with no fixed expiration date. Instead of rolling contracts forward every month, traders keep exposure open and use periodic funding payments to help keep the contract price near the reference asset. Crypto markets love this structure. Regulators, naturally, are less impressed by vibes.
Kalshi submitted the new products under CFTC Regulation 40.3, the filing route exchanges use to submit products to the regulator. That does not mean the contracts are live. It means Kalshi has put the paperwork in front of the CFTC and is waiting for the green light before listing anything.
US500 would track the MerQube US Large Cap Index, which covers 500 of the largest companies listed and domiciled in the United States, weighted by publicly available market capitalization. The contract would be cash settled and would have no fixed expiration or delivery date.
Kalshi says the contract would use a funding payment between long and short positions to help keep the price aligned with the reference index. A full contract would equal the index level multiplied by $1, so a one-point move in the index would change the contract’s value by $1. In plain English, if the index were at 6, 000, one full contract would imply a notional value of about $6, 000.
The proposal also includes a $25 million position accountability level based on mark-to-market value. Kalshi says it could also use price bands, order limits, and position controls to manage risk.
Kalshi argues US500 belongs under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction because it references a broad securities index. That is a legal argument, not a settled fact, and it matters because broad-based index products often sit more comfortably inside the CFTC’s lane than single-stock or narrow-index contracts.
COPPERPERP is the more interesting stress test. It would track copper’s spot price in U.S. dollars per pound through Pyth Network’s XCU/USD price feed. Pyth is a crypto-native data network that publishes market prices for trading systems and blockchains, which makes it useful here, but also means the quality of the feed matters a lot.
Each full contract would represent 1, 000 pounds of copper, and the minimum trade would be one-thousandth of a contract. A $0.0005 move per pound would change the value of a full contract by $0.50.
Kalshi proposed continuous trading from 6 p.m. ET on Sunday through 5 p.m. ET on Friday, with trading closed over the weekend and paused during weekday maintenance windows. The contract would also have a $5 million position accountability level and a maximum position of 25, 000 contracts, linked to federal rules covering the COMEX copper contract.
If the Pyth market is marked closed or the feed goes stale, the contract would use the last eligible published price. That fallback matters. If the data stops updating during a sharp move, funding payments and liquidation logic can get ugly fast, and traders can be left arguing with a screen that is confidently wrong. Nobody enjoys getting liquidated by stale tape and bureaucracy in tandem.
The timing is awkward because the legal fight around perpetual contracts is not going away. According to Dechert’s summary of the dispute, CME sued the CFTC on June 18, 2026, challenging the agency’s approval of Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual contract, BTCPERP. CME argues perpetual contracts should be treated as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, not futures.
That distinction is not just lawyer cosplay. Futures and swaps sit under different regulatory regimes, with different rules around registration, margin, clearing, reporting, and documentation. Swaps can also carry more demanding compliance obligations. In other words: the label decides which rulebook applies, and the rulebook decides how painful the game is.
The CFTC approved Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual futures contract in May, and the agency has treated the broader question of perpetuals as something that needs case-by-case review rather than a blanket pass. That is the important part. This is not a universal blessing for every perp in every market. It is a controlled experiment, and the regulator gets to choose the next lab rat one filing at a time.
That makes US500 and COPPERPERP more than just product launches in waiting. They are a test of whether a structure born in offshore crypto markets can be cleaned up enough to live inside a U.S. regulatory framework. If the CFTC allows it, perpetuals stop looking like a crypto oddity and start looking like a portable contract design that other exchanges may try to copy.
The upside is obvious. Perpetuals are efficient, flexible, and popular with traders because they avoid the awkward churn of expiry dates. The downside is also obvious. They can become leverage machines if risk controls are weak, the reference price is sloppy, or the market turns thin at the wrong moment. Put bluntly: perps are useful tools, but they are also very good at blowing people up when the plumbing is garbage.
Copper is the sharper test of the two because commodities bring real-world pricing headaches that crypto traders sometimes underestimate. Market hours matter. Liquidity gaps matter. Reference data quality matters. If the feed lags or the market gets weird, the whole setup can misprice risk in a hurry. That is where “innovative” turns into “oops.”
Kalshi’s move also says something bigger about where regulated markets may be headed. A broad stock index and a commodity are not the usual places you expect a crypto-born structure to show up. If the CFTC is willing to consider perpetuals here, the format may be less of a niche and more of a template. If not, the courts may end up deciding that perpetuals were shoved into the wrong legal box from the start.
For now, nothing is live. The filings are just filings. But they mark a clear attempt to normalize one of crypto’s most important market structures beyond bitcoin and into mainstream U.S. derivatives trading.
Key takeaways
-
What is Kalshi trying to do?
It wants the CFTC to approve perpetual futures tied to a broad U.S. stock index and copper, extending a crypto-native contract structure into regulated traditional markets. -
Are US500 and COPPERPERP approved?
No. Kalshi filed the products on Aug. 18, but they cannot trade unless the CFTC clears them. -
What makes a perpetual future different?
It has no fixed expiration date. Funding payments are used to keep the contract price close to the reference asset. -
Why does the futures-versus-swaps fight matter?
Because the legal label determines which rules apply, including registration, clearing, margin, reporting, and other compliance obligations. -
Why is the copper contract a big deal?
Copper is a tougher test than crypto because pricing feeds, trading hours, and liquidity can all break at the worst possible time. -
Is Kalshi trying to normalize perpetuals outside crypto?
Yes. If the CFTC approves these products, perpetuals could start looking like a reusable market structure rather than a crypto-only curiosity.
Related documents and coverage
For the underlying filings, orders, and market coverage around regulated perpetuals, these sources add useful context.
- Verification Successful: Waiting for Response from
- Error extracting content
- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the
- Kalshi wants to launch 'perps' tied to equity indexes
- Kalshi Launches CFTC-Approved Bitcoin Perpetual Futures for U.S. Traders
- CFTC Approves First Regulated Bitcoin Perpetual Futures on U.S. Exchange
- CFTC Clears Coinbase for U.S. Crypto Perpetual Futures Trading
