Kalshi Seeks CFTC Approval for Equity Index and Copper Perpetual Futures

Kalshi asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on August 18 to approve two non-crypto perpetual futures contracts, one tied to a U.S. large-cap equity index and one tied to copper spot prices. The filings move Kalshi’s perpetuals strategy into asset classes closer to CME Group’s core franchise while CME’s federal challenge to the CFTC’s perpetuals framework remains pending in Washington.

What did Kalshi file with the CFTC?

Kalshi submitted the two contracts under CFTC Regulation 40.3, the voluntary approval process for designated contract markets seeking commission review before listing a product. CFTC product filings identify the proposed contracts as US500PERP and COPPERPERP, both categorized as futures with approval pending.

The US500PERP contract would reference the MerQube U.S. Large Cap Index. Kalshi’s contract materials describe the index as measuring the performance of 500 large companies listed and based in the United States. The COPPERPERP contract would reference the spot price of copper quoted in U.S. dollars per pound, using the Pyth Network XCU-USD price feed, according to the filing materials.

Both contracts are structured as cash-settled perpetual futures. Unlike a conventional futures contract, a perpetual contract has no fixed expiration date. Its price is designed to remain close to the underlying reference price through a funding-rate mechanism that transfers payments between long and short positions at regular intervals.

The equity-index filing is especially sensitive because the U.S. derivatives framework divides jurisdiction between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Broad-based index futures generally fall under the CFTC’s framework, while futures on single securities or narrow-based security indexes implicate SEC-linked rules. Kalshi’s filing treats the MerQube index as broad-based, placing the request in the CFTC’s product-review process.

Why are these filings different from Kalshi’s crypto perpetuals?

The August 18 filings test the CFTC’s stated approach to perpetual contracts outside crypto. On May 29, the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP contract as a futures contract under Regulation 40.3, according to CFTC Release No. 9240-26 and the agency’s product-filing record. The same day, the commission issued a policy statement on how it would evaluate perpetual contracts more broadly.

The policy statement, published in the Federal Register on June 3 as 91 FR 33160, distinguished between crypto perpetuals and other asset classes. It said certain cryptocurrency perpetual contracts could proceed through the self-certification process under Regulation 40.2. For other asset classes, including agricultural products, precious metals, equity securities and narrow-based security indexes, the commission pointed exchanges toward case-by-case review under Regulation 40.3.

Kalshi moved quickly after that statement. CFTC product records show Kalshi crypto perpetuals including XRP, SUI and XLM were certified on June 1, followed by contracts including BTC, ETH, DOGE, DOT, HBAR and LINK on June 2. Kalshi then filed gold, silver and platinum perpetual futures on July 21 through the 45-day approval-pending route. The August 18 equity-index and copper submissions extend that same non-crypto approval strategy.

The CFTC’s May 29 order did not give Kalshi a blanket clearance for every perpetual contract. The Federal Register policy statement said perpetual design may raise different considerations depending on the underlying asset, and the CFTC’s BTCPERP order said the commission’s approval was based on Kalshi’s representations and materials for that specific bitcoin contract.

How does Bitnomial change the market context?

Kalshi is not the first U.S. regulated exchange to pursue perpetual futures. CFTC product records show Bitnomial Exchange certified a Bitcoin U.S. Dollar Centi Perpetual Futures Contract on April 23, 2025. Bitnomial said at the time that trading would begin April 28, 2025, initially for institutional participants. CFTC records also show later Bitnomial perpetual futures certifications in 2026, including bitcoin, ether, dogecoin and bitcoin cash products.

That history matters because the fight is not only about Kalshi. The broader regulatory question is whether perpetual contracts can be listed as futures on designated contract markets, or whether their no-expiration structure and recurring funding payments make them swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and Dodd-Frank Act.

Kalshi’s significance is different: it is pushing the CFTC’s new framework into widely traded non-crypto exposures. An equity-index perpetual and a copper perpetual would move the product type from digital assets into markets where incumbent futures exchanges already list deep, established contracts.

Why does CME care about Kalshi’s filings?

CME Group’s core listed derivatives business includes equity-index futures and metals futures. CME lists E-mini S&P 500 futures, one of the central U.S. equity-index futures products, and copper futures used by commercial and financial market participants. Kalshi’s US500PERP would not be an S&P 500 contract, and the filing does not establish that it would match CME’s liquidity or margin terms. But the proposed product would target a similar category of directional exposure to large-cap U.S. equities.

The copper filing raises a parallel issue in commodities. CME’s COMEX copper futures are a benchmark contract for market participants managing or trading exposure to copper prices. Kalshi’s COPPERPERP filing would create a CFTC-reviewed perpetual product tied to spot copper pricing rather than a conventional expiring futures contract.

CME has already gone to court over the CFTC’s treatment of perpetuals. On June 18, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. sued the CFTC and Chairman Michael Selig in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. Selig, No. 1:26-cv-02157, was assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, according to the federal docket and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse case summary.

CME’s complaint challenges the May 29 approval of Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract and the CFTC’s accompanying policy statement. The complaint argues that perpetual contracts should be regulated as swaps, not futures, because they lack fixed expiration dates and involve recurring funding-rate payments. CME also argues that the CFTC departed from prior agency treatment of offshore perpetual products without an adequate explanation under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The CFTC has not obtained a merits ruling in the case. The lawsuit remains the key legal overhang for every exchange trying to build U.S.-regulated perpetual products under the futures framework.

What are perpetual futures, and why is the classification fight important?

A conventional futures contract expires on a fixed date. A perpetual futures contract does not. Instead, the contract uses a funding-rate process intended to pull the contract price toward the reference market. When a perpetual trades above the reference price, longs generally pay shorts. When it trades below the reference price, shorts generally pay longs. The exact timing and formula depend on the contract terms.

That design became prominent in offshore crypto derivatives markets, where perpetual contracts are widely used for leveraged directional trading. U.S. regulators have long brought enforcement actions against offshore platforms that offered leveraged crypto derivatives to U.S. customers without proper registration. CME’s complaint cites that history to argue that the CFTC cannot now treat comparable perpetual structures as futures without explaining the change.

The CFTC’s position, as reflected in its May 29 BTCPERP order and June 3 policy statement, is narrower than a full rulemaking. The commission approved Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual based on that filing’s terms and said the policy statement does not amend the Commodity Exchange Act or bind future commission action. That leaves room for a court to decide whether the agency’s approach fits the statute.

The classification question carries practical consequences. A product listed as a futures contract on a designated contract market follows the futures regulatory path. A product classified as a swap would face a different framework, including swap execution, clearing, reporting and participant rules. For Kalshi’s pending equity-index and copper filings, that distinction is the central legal risk.

What happens next?

Under CFTC Regulation 40.3, the commission generally has a 45-day review period for a voluntary product-approval submission, although the agency can request changes or additional information during review. Because Kalshi filed US500PERP and COPPERPERP on August 18, the review window points to early October unless the process changes.

The next milestone is whether the CFTC acts on the August 18 filings while CME’s lawsuit is still pending. Approval would signal that the commission is willing to apply its perpetuals framework beyond crypto and precious metals. A delay, withdrawal or denial would show a more cautious path for non-crypto perpetuals while the federal court considers CME’s challenge.