In a push that could have significant implications for both traditional finance and digital asset markets, Ondo has urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to bring perpetual futures tied to individual U.S. stocks onshore. The proposal centers on the idea that existing securities laws may already be sufficient to support these products, even as regulators continue to evaluate how to manage derivative activity within the United States.
What Are U.S. Stock Perpetuals?
At their core, perpetual futures are a type of derivative contract that does not have a fixed expiration date. Unlike traditional futures, which require settlement or rollover at the end of a contract period, perpetuals allow traders to maintain positions continuously. To keep the contract price aligned with the underlying asset, these products typically use a funding mechanism that pays or charges participants based on the difference between the derivative price and the reference price.
In the crypto world, perpetual futures have become one of the most popular trading instruments. They have given traders a way to gain leveraged exposure to digital assets without needing to own the underlying coin. Now, the concept is being extended to U.S. equities, which is where Ondo’s push becomes particularly interesting.
Why This Matters for U.S. Markets
For years, many U.S. investors who wanted access to certain derivative-style trading products had to rely on offshore platforms. Those venues often operated outside U.S. regulatory oversight, which created concerns around market integrity, investor protection, and compliance. By bringing stock perpetuals onshore, regulators could potentially keep trading activity within a familiar legal framework while still allowing for product innovation.
Ondo’s argument is that the United States does not necessarily need a brand-new regulatory regime to accommodate these instruments. Instead, it may be possible to use existing securities laws, supervision tools, and market structure principles to govern perpetual futures tied to individual stocks. That position matters because it suggests the debate may not be about whether the law is too restrictive, but whether regulators are willing to apply current frameworks in a modern way.
The Regulatory Case for Onshore Derivative Activity
The case for bringing more derivative activity onshore is not new. Regulators have long been interested in keeping large financial markets within U.S. borders, where reporting requirements, custody standards, and enforcement mechanisms can be more easily applied. When trading moves offshore, it becomes harder to monitor, and it can reduce the visibility regulators have into market behavior.
Onshore products would also make it easier to enforce standards around:
- Know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering controls
- Position limits and margin requirements
- Transparency in pricing and settlement
- Investor disclosures around leverage and risk
For market participants, that kind of clarity can be just as important as product availability. Institutional investors, in particular, often prefer regulated venues because they reduce legal uncertainty and operational risk.
Why Ondo Is Pushing Now
Ondo’s push appears to be part of a broader effort to position the United States as a competitive venue for tokenized assets and next-generation financial products. The company has been active in the space of tokenized securities, and its interest in stock perpetuals reflects a larger trend: the blending of traditional equity markets with blockchain-based infrastructure.
If regulators embrace this approach, it could open the door to new ways of trading, settling, and holding exposure to U.S. stocks. It could also strengthen the case for digital assets as a functional part of the financial system, rather than a separate and peripheral market.
Risks and Open Questions
That said, the idea is not without challenges. Perpetual futures are leveraged products, and leverage can amplify both gains and losses. For less experienced investors, that creates real risk. Regulators would likely want to ensure that any onshore version of these products comes with strong safeguards, including clear risk disclosures, appropriate margin rules, and robust monitoring of funding rates.
There are also market structure questions to resolve. How would these contracts be cleared? Who would provide the underlying stock exposure? How would settlement work? And how would regulators prevent excessive speculation or market manipulation? These are not trivial issues, and the answers will shape whether the product becomes a regulated mainstream offering or remains a niche instrument.
The Broader Implications
If the SEC and CFTC move forward with a framework for U.S. stock perpetuals, it could signal a more constructive approach to financial innovation. It would suggest that regulators are willing to work within existing legal tools to accommodate new market structures, rather than waiting for entirely new legislation. That could be an important shift, especially in a market where many participants have grown accustomed to slower rulemaking.
At the same time, the outcome will likely depend on how well regulators balance innovation with protection. The goal would not just be to bring products onshore, but to do so in a way that preserves market confidence and keeps retail and institutional investors safe.
Bottom Line
Ondo’s call for the SEC and CFTC to bring U.S. stock perpetuals onshore is a notable development in the ongoing conversation about where the next generation of financial products will be built. The core argument is compelling: if existing securities laws can support these instruments, the United States has a strong case for hosting them rather than ceding that activity to offshore venues. Whether regulators ultimately agree will depend on how confidently they can manage the risks, but the proposal itself highlights a growing opportunity for the U.S. to remain at the center of financial market innovation.
Related read: Cardano Strengthens Enterprise Adoption as Retail Supply Chain Verification Expands
