For years, perpetual futures have been a staple in the crypto trading world, particularly among international investors. Now, with their introduction to regulated American markets, Wall Street is grappling with whether they represent a fleeting retail fad or a lasting challenge to traditional futures. The initial numbers are undeniable.
Kalshi's perpetual futures surpassed $1 billion in trading volume within a week of their launch in June, marking the company's most successful product debut since prediction markets. The exchange has since sought regulatory approval to offer perpetual futures tied to gold and silver, indicating that the product may not be limited to bitcoin and other digital assets.
Perpetual futures, also known as perps, are similar to standard futures contracts but lack an expiration date. Traders are not required to close or roll over a position into a new contract each month or quarter. Instead, periodic funding payments help maintain the contract's price close to the underlying asset. This product has become a core component of global crypto trading, with Bank of America estimating annual perpetual futures volume at approximately $90 trillion.
On May 29, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) granted Kalshi approval to offer the contracts, and Coinbase also received clearance to list regulated perpetual futures in the US. However, within Wall Street, interest does not translate to immediate adoption.
People familiar with the discussions stated that perps are being mentioned more frequently, partly because US regulators are allowing markets that previously operated offshore to move onshore. Nevertheless, most large financial institutions are still studying the products rather than preparing major launches.
The first movers are likely to be proprietary trading firms, market makers, and newer clearing firms. Unlike large banks, prop shops trade their own capital, giving them more freedom to test new venues, accept operational risk, and withdraw if the economics stop working. Big banks face stricter capital rules, client obligations, and reputational risk. For them, the potential profit in a young market may not yet justify the cost of building compliance, clearing, and risk systems around it.
The difference in approach matters because the term 'Wall Street' encompasses several groups moving at different speeds. Individual traders and smaller firms often arrive first, followed by market makers once volume grows. Banks typically require years of data, clear regulatory treatment, and stable infrastructure before committing large sums.
The potential use cases for perps extend beyond speculation. They could help traders manage weekend risk, as traditional futures markets close for part of the weekend, even though significant events do not. A liquid 24-hour perpetual market could change that, allowing firms to adjust positions as events unfold and use weekend prices to estimate where CME futures may reopen. Insiders stated that perps could be useful as both a hedge and a source of price discovery.
'The demand has to be there, or the capital won't be,' one industry insider said, arguing that firms won't commit balance sheet until customer activity justifies it. The problem lies in depth.
A contract may trade around the clock, but that does not mean institutions can move large positions without shifting the market. Weekend liquidity remains thin, and collateral systems do not always move as quickly as the markets they support. A regulatory battle is also taking shape, with one key question being whether some perpetual contracts should be treated as futures or swaps.
That distinction affects margin rules, registration duties, and who can provide liquidity. Industry insiders said those legal questions may become more important as exchanges push perps into commodities, equities, and other traditional markets. The debate is also becoming a competitive one, with CME challenging the CFTC's treatment of Kalshi's bitcoin perpetuals, arguing that the contracts should be regulated differently.
Similar disputes could emerge if exchanges seek to expand perpetuals into equities and other asset classes. 'A lot of this stuff...
is more commercial than people are going to admit to out loud,' another industry insider said, suggesting that some opposition reflects incumbent exchanges protecting existing businesses as much as concerns about market structure. For now, Wall Street's view is cautious rather than hostile. Trading firms see a product they understand, regulators see a market moving onshore, and exchanges see a chance to capture new volume. However, the largest banks are unlikely to lead, waiting for the rules, liquidity, and infrastructure to catch up.