Key Highlights
- Kalshi intends to request regulatory clearance for approximately 60 perpetual futures contracts based on U.S. equities and ETFs.
- Target companies may include Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia with continuous trading capabilities.
- The CFTC greenlit Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual product in May while emphasizing individual asset class reviews.
- Citadel Securities contends that stock-linked perpetuals belong under SEC jurisdiction.
- Key oversight concerns include insider trading protocols, market surveillance coordination, halt procedures, and inter-market supervision.
Kalshi intends to pursue U.S. regulatory clearance for perpetual futures based on prominent stocks and exchange-traded funds. This initiative would introduce a trading instrument familiar to cryptocurrency markets into conventional equity sectors.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the prediction platform aims to launch approximately 60 such contracts. Potential underlying assets include Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia shares. These proposed instruments would enable continuous trading beyond standard market hours and feature no expiration requirements.
Round-the-Clock Trading Framework for Major Equities
Perpetual futures enable market participants to speculate on asset price movements without predetermined settlement dates. Funding rate mechanisms between counterparties maintain price alignment with underlying assets.
Cryptocurrency platforms have operated these instruments for several years. Kalshi seeks to introduce this framework to American equities. A Tesla perpetual contract, for instance, would remain active during evenings and weekends when traditional exchanges cease operations.
This approach would establish continuous price discovery for major corporations beyond conventional trading sessions. The proposal raises significant questions regarding regulatory jurisdiction over equity-based perpetual instruments.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission authorized Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract in May. The CFTC designated this instrument as a futures product while noting that identical treatment might prove inappropriate for different asset categories.
The agency indicated that perpetual contracts tracking alternative assets would likely necessitate separate evaluations. This stance carries substantial implications as Kalshi pursues authorization for stock and ETF-based products.
The Securities and Exchange Commission maintains authority over U.S. publicly traded shares. This generates jurisdictional complexity because the proposed instruments would reference securities while functioning as futures contracts under distinct regulatory oversight.
Citadel Raises Concerns About Fragmented Market Oversight
Citadel Securities submitted a communication to both the SEC and CFTC expressing reservations. The market-making firm contended that instruments referencing publicly traded corporations should continue under SEC authority.
Citadel cautioned that transferring equity-linked products beyond established oversight could fragment market surveillance infrastructure. Existing SEC regulations integrate monitoring across equities, derivatives, and associated trading venues.
The firm highlighted potential complications regarding material nonpublic information and trading suspensions. Individuals possessing confidential corporate data might execute perpetual contract transactions during periods when the underlying equity market remains inactive.
Trading suspensions present additional obstacles. Corporations may disclose significant information while their shares face temporary halts, yet corresponding perpetual contracts could continue operating without synchronized regulatory protocols.
Kalshi’s initiative therefore introduces cryptocurrency-inspired continuous trading mechanisms to markets structured around defined sessions. Regulatory determinations will establish whether single-stock perpetual futures can function within current U.S. market structure.





