Phantom and Hyperliquid Urge CFTC to Modernize Onchain Derivatives Rules

Par La Rédaction
Publié le 11 July 2026

Non classé

Phantom and Hyperliquid Ask CFTC to Modernize Rules for Onchain Derivatives – A Historic Turning Point for American DeFi

Date: July 11, 2026 – 12:00 UTC | BTC: $64,185 | ETH: $1,799.80 (Binance)

This is a signal that was not expected, at least not with this strength or coordination. Phantom and Hyperliquid – two heavyweights of decentralized finance – have officially filed a joint request with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asking for a deep modernization of the regulatory framework applicable to onchain derivatives. The news, reported by CoinTelegraph on July 11, 2026, marks a sharp break from the confrontational posture that has long characterized relations between DeFi and U.S. regulators.

Rather than wait for another enforcement action – those coercive procedures that have already hit Uniswap, Coinbase, Kraken, and many others – Phantom and Hyperliquid choose the opposite path: proactive negotiation. They are not asking for an exemption, nor a legal vacuum. They are asking for rules. Modern rules, adapted to the technical and economic reality of smart contracts, onchain oracles, and decentralized perpetual markets. In doing so, they may open the door for American DeFi to finally emerge from its regulatory purgatory.

As these lines are written, Bitcoin is trading at $64,185 and Ethereum at $1,799.80 on Binance (12:00 UTC), in a market that has been digesting multiple regulatory advances for several weeks – MiCA in Europe, stablecoin reform in the United States, and now this unprecedented joint initiative. The contrast is striking: while Europe has already had its operational MiCA framework for several months, American DeFi players are still begging their own regulators to deign to define clear rules.

What Are Phantom and Hyperliquid Talking About?

Phantom is known to the general crypto public as an elegant multi-chain wallet – but it is much more than that. Behind its polished interface, Phantom has established itself as a complete DeFi aggregation platform, integrating swapping, staking, and now derivatives services. Hyperliquid, for its part, is one of the most liquid decentralized perpetual exchanges in the world, with volumes that regularly compete with those of Binance or Bybit on certain perpetual markets. Together, these two platforms represent a significant share of DeFi infrastructure in the United States.

Their joint request to the CFTC focuses on several precise axes:

First, the recognition of a specific category of “onchain derivatives” distinct from traditional derivatives and even centralized crypto derivatives. The argument is as follows: a perpetual contract executed entirely via an audited smart contract, with total transparency of collateral flows and automated liquidation mechanisms, does not present the same risks – nor the same opportunities – as a traditional derivative traded over-the-counter or on a centralized futures market. Phantom and Hyperliquid advocate for an approach based on actual risk rather than on legal categories inherited from the 1980s.

Second, proportional rules for oracles and onchain price feeds. Today, decentralized derivatives platforms use oracles like Pyth Network or Chainlink to determine execution and liquidation prices. Phantom and Hyperliquid ask the CFTC to recognize these mechanisms as equivalent – or superior – to traditional pricing systems, and to establish resilience and security standards specific to these onchain infrastructures.

Third, the crucial question of custody and collateral. In DeFi, collateral is not held by a central counterparty but locked in smart contracts. The two platforms ask the CFTC to clarify the regulatory status of these assets: are stablecoins and other tokens deposited as collateral in a decentralized perpetual contract considered “customer funds” under the Commodity Exchange Act? And if so, how to apply fund segregation rules to protocols that, by construction, do not allow a centralized entity to “touch” these funds?

A Paradigm Shift: From Conflict to Co-Regulation

This joint filing is all the more remarkable because it occurs in a U.S. context where the CFTC and the SEC have long been disputing jurisdiction over digital assets, leaving DeFi players in an almost total regulatory fog. For years, the dominant strategy in American DeFi was that of maximalist decentralization: “We are just a protocol, we cannot be regulated, we have no CEO, no office, no bank accounts.” This approach, while allowing the industry to be born and grow, also generated deep institutional mistrust and a series of enforcement actions that stifled innovation.

Today, Phantom and Hyperliquid take the exact opposite stance of this philosophy. They implicitly recognize that regulation is not an existential threat to DeFi, but rather a necessary condition for its mass adoption. They are asking for a framework, certainly modernized, but a framework nonetheless – with clear boundaries, precise definitions, and rights and obligations for all parties.

This approach fits into a broader trend that could be called “compliance-first DeFi,” a movement gaining ground since the entry into force of the MiCA regulation in Europe. MiCA has proven that it is possible to regulate digital assets – including decentralized aspects – without killing innovation. Stablecoin issuers, exchanges, and now European DeFi protocols operate within a known, predictable, and above all applicable framework. Phantom and Hyperliquid seem to be telling the CFTC: “If Europe can do it, why can’t we?”

Market Stakes: What It Means for BTC, ETH, and DeFi

The potential impact of this initiative on crypto markets is considerable. If the CFTC agrees to engage in formal dialogue with Phantom and Hyperliquid – and beyond, with the entire DeFi industry – the implications would be multiple.

For Bitcoin ($64,185), regulatory clarification in the United States opens the door to increased institutional participation in onchain derivatives markets. Today, institutions that want exposure to BTC via derivatives essentially have the choice between CME futures (regulated, but centralized and expensive) and offshore perpetuals (unregulated, but liquid). A CFTC framework for onchain derivatives would create a third path – regulated, decentralized, and potentially more efficient – which could attract massive inflows.

For Ethereum ($1,799.80), the impact is even more direct. Hyperliquid and Phantom are both deeply integrated into the Ethereum ecosystem and its L2s. Regulatory recognition of onchain derivatives would immediately benefit the entire Ethereum value chain: oracles (Chainlink, Pyth), liquid staking protocols (Lido, Rocket Pool), and L2 infrastructures (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) that host a growing share of onchain trading volumes.

Beyond BTC and ETH, the entire DeFi ecosystem could benefit from this movement. Tokens of protocols like Hyperliquid (HYPE) or projects linked to Phantom would see their value proposition reinforced by a clear regulatory framework. Investors could finally evaluate these protocols not on their ability to evade the regulator, but on their compliance, transparency, and long-term viability.

A FULL DCN Gap: Why No Article Yet Exists on This Subject

It is striking to note that, to date, no in-depth article in French has been published on this joint Phantom-Hyperliquid initiative....