Hyperliquid Seeks U.S. Rules for Trading Firms, Not Its Blockchain
Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan says U.S. regulators should oversee financial firms that operate trading businesses on Hyperliquid, rather than regulate the blockchain itself. He argues that compliance should fall on firms able to control how markets operate. This approach could allow Wall Street institutions to build regulated trading platforms using Hyperliquid technology without requiring the network to register as an exchange. Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures market remains unavailable to U.S. customers, but Kraken parent Payward plans to offer U.S. investors derivatives using the technology through a regulated exchange. Yan’s proposal follows President Donald Trump’s August statement that the CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S. under federal rules. A regulated route could expand access to Hyperliquid-based products, though the proposal’s reception by Congress and regulators remains uncertain.
Neutral
The proposal could be a long-term positive for Hyperliquid if it leads to regulated U.S. access for products built on the network. Payward’s plan to offer derivatives using Hyperliquid technology provides a concrete sign of institutional interest. However, Hyperliquid’s own perpetual futures remain unavailable to U.S. customers, and the regulatory approach is not settled; potential opposition from Congress or regulators could delay or limit implementation. In the short term, the news may support sentiment and trading attention around HYPE, but it does not establish a direct change in access, revenue or demand. Historically, regulatory-access headlines can prompt volatility, while prices tend to respond more durably once approvals, launch dates and actual user uptake are confirmed. The balance of prospective opportunity and unresolved regulatory risk supports a neutral classification.