CME's recent move is quite interesting; perpetual contract liquidity has long outperformed traditional futures, and regulatory frameworks indeed need to keep up with market realities.

Wu said that Dragonfly partner Lindsay Lin, when commenting on CME’s lawsuit against the CFTC, stated that crypto perpetual contracts have achieved stronger liquidity and user demand worldwide than crypto futures, and that many investors are willing to go to offshore markets to access related products. She believes that CME excluding perpetual contracts from the category of futures is mainly based on the technical distinction of “no expiration date,” but for traders, what matters more is a highly liquid price exposure tool that does not require managing rollover risk and contract expiration issues. Lin believes that crypto perpetual contracts have the same characteristics as futures, including standardized contracts, centralized clearing, margin mechanisms, and profit-and-loss settlement; their risk profile is more similar to that of futures, so they should be subject to a relatively simplified futures regulatory framework rather than being included in the swaps regulation system. She also supports CFTC efforts to promote the inclusion of related products within the U.S. regulatory…