Hyperliquid wants into the US market. It just doesn’t want to be the one holding the license.
In an October 15, 2026 appearance on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, Hyperliquid Labs CEO and co-founder Jeff Yan sketched a regulatory model in which US oversight targets the financial firms that run markets on Hyperliquid’s Layer-1 blockchain. Under his proposal, the blockchain itself would sit outside exchange-level rules.
The internet analogy, applied to derivatives
Yan’s core argument leaned on a comparison to the internet. Nobody asks the protocols that move web traffic to register as a bank. The bank running a website on top of those protocols handles the compliance.
Hyperliquid, in Yan’s framing, is the plumbing. The licensed market operators building on it would be the ones answering to regulators.
Yan also pitched Hyperliquid as a partner to traditional finance rather than a rival. He described the goal as supplying core infrastructure that established firms can build on.
Washington is already paying attention
On August 19, 2026, President Trump said CFTC Chair Michael Selig was actively working to bring Hyperliquid into US markets in a fully legal way.
Hyperliquid had been preparing for this conversation well before Trump weighed in. In February 2026, the Hyperliquid Policy Center was funded with 1 million HYPE to engage with regulators including the CFTC and the SEC.
How HIP-3 makes the operator model work
Yan’s proposal isn’t purely theoretical. Hyperliquid already has a mechanism that separates the chain from the people running markets on it.
Under the HIP-3 framework, anyone who wants to deploy a market on Hyperliquid must stake 500,000 HYPE tokens for at least 183 days. The HIP-3 setup lets third parties stand up their own markets while the main Hyperliquid platform stays closed to US traders.
Kraken’s parent is already testing the idea
In September 2026, Payward, the parent company of Kraken, announced a partnership with Bitnomial and NinjaTrader Clearing to offer permissioned perpetual futures tied to Hyperliquid markets. Those products are aimed at eligible US clients, with users not getting direct access to the main Hyperliquid platform.
Payward’s structure is a working version of Yan’s pitch. Regulated US firms handle client onboarding, clearing, and permissions. Hyperliquid’s markets provide the underlying activity. The chain stays in the background.
What this means for Hyperliquid, regulators, and Wall Street
For regulators, Yan’s proposal offers a familiar shape. The CFTC already knows how to supervise clearing firms, futures commission merchants, and exchanges. Asking it to supervise the companies plugging into Hyperliquid, rather than a decentralized blockchain, keeps the agency inside its comfort zone.
HYPE holders have a specific reason to watch. Every HIP-3 deployer has to lock up 500,000 HYPE for at least 183 days, so a wave of new market operators would mean more tokens committed to staking.
Yan’s framework is a proposal, not policy. The CFTC has not formally adopted it, and the SEC’s view on where Hyperliquid fits remains a separate variable.
What to watch next: any formal guidance from Selig’s CFTC on how it will treat platforms like Hyperliquid, whether additional US brokers or clearing firms copy the Payward model, and how the Hyperliquid Policy Center uses its 1 million HYPE war chest in conversations with the CFTC and SEC.
Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.