CFTC Chairman Clarifies Four Major Misconceptions About Perpetual Futures Contracts

Mike Selig, Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), published an article clarifying four major misconceptions about perpetual futures contracts.

Regarding the misconception of "fixed expiration date": There is a viewpoint that the defined "futures contract" requires a fixed expiration date or delivery date, and the indefinite nature of perpetual contracts is inconsistent with congressional intent. Selig clarified that neither the Commodity Exchange Act nor CFTC regulations provide a clear definition of the term "futures contract," nor do they require a fixed expiration date or delivery date. Since Congress did not define the term, the criteria for its determination are provided by case law and committee interpretation, both of which do not require a fixed expiration date.

Regarding the misconception of "high leverage": There is a viewpoint that the CFTC approved a futures contract allowing Americans to use leverage of up to 250 times when approving the BTCPERP contract, violating its own rules. Selig clarified that extreme leverage has been a characteristic of trading perpetual contracts in offshore venues since their inception, and is not inherent to the contract structure itself. The perpetual contracts regulated by the CFTC are subject to the same leverage limits as other futures contracts regulated by the CFTC.

Regarding the misconception of "public opinion": There is a viewpoint that the CFTC did not provide the industry with an opportunity to participate or express opinions. Selig clarified that the CFTC released a request for comments on "perpetual contracts" and "24/7 trading" in April 2025, soliciting public input, and received over 100 comments from a wide range of stakeholders, including many registered entities regulated by the CFTC.

Regarding the misconception of "funding rates": There is a viewpoint that the funding rate mechanism imposes unique and prohibitively high costs on market participants, fostering bad behavior in the market. Selig clarified that after considering the costs associated with opening positions and rolling over contracts with expiration dates, the annualized cost of holding futures contracts with expiration dates is roughly equivalent to that of perpetual contracts. The funding rate mechanism is far from fostering bad behavior; rather, it is a constraint tool that keeps the contract linked to the underlying spot market.