Coinbase, Kalshi and Payward have formally intervened in a federal lawsuit to defend the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority over single-stock perpetual futures, even as Kalshi itself faces imminent enforcement action from the same regulator.
According to Cointelegraph, the three crypto firms joined four other companies in filing a motion for leave to submit an amicus brief supporting the CFTC's regulatory jurisdiction. The Block reported that the brief defends the agency's authority to regulate single-stock perpetual futures in the United States, a derivatives product that has drawn increasing attention from both traditional and crypto-native trading platforms.
The intervention comes at a moment of acute tension for Kalshi. The prediction markets operator disclosed that the CFTC has warned it of imminent charges over notification of contracts, according to Cointelegraph. Kalshi indicated that the issue involves procedural errors affecting a handful of contracts, many of which were not live at the time.
The apparent contradiction—Kalshi simultaneously defending the CFTC's authority in one proceeding while facing potential enforcement from the same agency—reflects the complex regulatory landscape confronting crypto and prediction market operators. Rather than opposing the CFTC's jurisdictional claims, the firms appear to be advocating for clear regulatory boundaries that would allow compliant operators to offer derivatives products under federal oversight.
Single-stock perpetual futures, which trade similarly to traditional perpetual swaps but reference individual equities rather than indices or cryptocurrencies, occupy an uncertain space in U.S. regulatory frameworks. The CFTC has asserted authority over these products, though their treatment under securities laws remains contested. The amicus intervention suggests major industry participants prefer CFTC jurisdiction—typically viewed as more accommodating to innovative products than the Securities and Exchange Commission—over a potential turf battle that could leave the instruments in regulatory limbo.
For Kalshi specifically, the enforcement warning represents the latest friction in its relationship with the CFTC. The platform, which offers legally regulated prediction markets on political, economic and cultural events, has previously faced scrutiny over contract design and listing procedures. The current dispute centers on notification failures rather than fundamental product questions, according to Kalshi's characterization, though the full scope of the agency's concerns remains undisclosed.
The coordinated action by Coinbase, Kalshi and Payward—Kraken's operating entity—demonstrates how crypto infrastructure providers have developed sophisticated legal strategies around derivatives regulation. Rather than resisting federal oversight entirely, these firms have increasingly sought to shape the boundaries and application of existing statutes, particularly in areas where CFTC authority offers a clearer path to compliant operation than alternative regulatory frameworks.
The amicus filing also illustrates the emerging alliance between traditional derivatives markets and crypto-native platforms on questions of regulatory architecture. As both sectors converge on similar instrument types—perpetual futures, prediction markets, and event-based derivatives—their interests align in establishing predictable federal standards rather than state-by-state fragmentation or protracted jurisdictional disputes between federal agencies.