Ondo calls on SEC and CFTC to jointly regulate U.S. equity perpetual contracts

Ondo Finance urges U.S. regulators to clarify the federal regulatory framework for stock perpetual contracts

Ondo Finance, a tokenized asset issuer, is pushing U.S. regulators to include stock perpetual contracts in clearer federal regulation. The move puts the company at the heart of an unresolved jurisdictional issue involving both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which are currently weighing how to define derivatives products.

The core issues that Ondo requires regulators to examine

Ondo publicly advocates the establishment of open, on-chain market infrastructure in his "Open Market Design" theory, arguing that perpetual contracts designed based on U.S. stocks should be included within a clear regulatory framework rather than outside regulation. The company detailed its strategic positioning in the report, hoping to move the main broker business on-chain, and sees perpetual contracts as the first step towards achieving this goal. Ondo's advocacy needs to be clearly distinguished from the final decision of any regulator-no party has confirmed that a specific framework has been adopted for equity perpetual contracts, which remains an outstanding policy issue, and Ondo is urging the SEC and CFTC to respond directly.

Why U.S. equity perpetual contracts form a regulatory gray area

Perpetual contracts linked to individual stocks are in an awkward position between two statutory regulatory regimes: on the one hand, contracts referring to securities may involve the jurisdiction of the SEC; on the other hand, their derivative structures may fall within the scope of CFTC regulation. This overlap is at the heart of the CFTC's own policy statement on perpetual contracts, which views the classification of such products as an open issue rather than one that existing definitions can resolve. As trading platforms move equity assets onto the chain, this unclear regulatory boundary is important for market structures that already span two areas-for example, Binance has launched physically delivered U.S. stocks and ETF options trading, highlighting the speed at which equity-linked derivatives are migrating to the cryptocurrency orbit.

How the SEC and CFTC's comment process affects discussions

According to the SEC's joint statement, the two agencies have begun to solicit public comments to further clarify and coordinate the definition of derivative products. Public solicitation means an open policy issue rather than a final rule. This shows that regulators are still collecting opinions on the ownership of products such as stock perpetual contracts, so this step alone cannot conclude that any specific framework is about to be approved. For policy observers, coordination will serve as a mechanism to weigh investor protection and market integrity issues-because uniform product definitions determine what registration, disclosure and monitoring obligations are required for specific contracts.

New perspectives brought by Ondo's on-chain market vision

Based on the theoretical framework of his Open Market Design, Ondo's macro argument views perpetual contracts as part of a larger strategy to drive the migration of regulated market infrastructure up the chain. This vision extends the company's existing business layout in tokenized real-world assets. In a trend of threefold growth in the market share of tokenized stocks, Ondo, along with institutions such as Binance and xStocks, has been listed as an industry leader, putting its advocacy of perpetual contracts in the fast-growing tokenized stock segment. However, the plan reported in the media was not a confirmed official release.

FAQ: Regulation of stock perpetual contracts

What is a stock perpetual contract?

It is a derivative that tracks stock prices and has no expiration date, and the CFTC is reviewing this structure in its perpetual contract policy statement.

Why could both the SEC and CFTC be involved?

Because the underlying asset is a security and the contract instrument is a derivative, the product may involve the regulatory scope of both agencies, so they are seeking opinions to harmonize definitions.

Does the current process mean regulatory approval is imminent?

This is not the case. The public consultation phase reflects open issues and has not yet adopted any recognized framework for equity perpetual contracts.

The next specific trigger point worth noting is the result of the SEC and CFTC comment process on the definition of derivatives products, which will determine whether equity perpetual contracts can obtain clear regulatory ownership.