The crypto market’s signature derivatives product—perpetual futures—is finally landing on regulated US exchanges, yet the very banks that dominate Wall Street are choosing to watch rather than dive in. Kalshi, the prediction market pioneer, saw its newly launched perpetuals top $1 billion in trading volume within a week of going live in June, making them the firm’s biggest product debut since prediction markets. Coinbase also secured Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) approval to list regulated perpetuals, marking a historic shift for a product that has long operated offshore, where Bank of America estimates annual volumes near $90 trillion.
Unlike traditional futures, perpetual contracts don’t expire. They use periodic funding payments to tether the contract price to the underlying asset, a mechanism that has made them the backbone of global crypto trading on platforms like Binance, Bybit, and OKX. The CFTC’s green light on May 29 for Kalshi, and subsequent approval for Coinbase, creates a legal path for these instruments in America. Kalshi has already asked regulators to expand into gold and silver perpetuals, a sign that the ambitions reach far beyond Bitcoin.
Inside the big banks, however, the reaction has been slow. People familiar with private discussions say perps are cropping up in more conversations, but most large financial institutions remain in study mode rather than preparing major launches. Proprietary trading firms and market makers—entities that trade their own capital—are far more likely to be the first movers. They can afford to test new venues and withdraw quickly if the economics sour, something deposit-taking banks cannot easily do given their stricter capital requirements, client duties, and reputational exposures.
This caution is not just about operational risk. Banks are uncertain about liquidity depth, especially outside regular trading hours. While a liquid 24‑hour perpetual market could help traders hedge weekend risk—when traditional futures are closed but geopolitical events don’t pause—current weekend liquidity remains thin. Institutions that need to move large positions worry about slippage and collateral systems that may not keep pace with rapid market swings. There is also a brewing regulatory fight over whether certain perpetual contracts should be treated as futures or swaps, a distinction that changes margin rules, registration duties, and who can provide liquidity. CME has already challenged the CFTC’s treatment of Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetuals, and similar disputes could arise if exchanges push into equities and commodities.
The hesitation mirrors the broader relationship between traditional banks and crypto. Only days before a key Senate vote, banks lobbied aggressively against major crypto legislation, underscoring their unease with an asset class that competes with legacy payments and custody. Perpetual futures, with their crypto‑native funding‑rate mechanics, look alien to legacy risk systems. Building a bridge is expensive, and for now, optional. Banks want years of data, clear regulatory treatment, and stable infrastructure before committing balance sheet.
Meanwhile, the landscape is being shaped by non‑bank players. Crypto‑native exchanges and nimble trading firms are racing to capture demand. Market makers like Jump and Jane Street are reportedly preparing to provide liquidity, recognizing that regulated perpetuals could pull volume back onshore and create a new profit pool. The road may be wide open for the non‑banks, and that alone is rewriting the competitive map for a $90 trillion product that crypto traders have long considered indispensable.
