hyperliquid is a killer product
meanwhile, there are pressures that may constrain the project’s viability within US borders
including:
- hyperliquid’s product layer (via CFTC’s kalshi approval, coinbase/deribit no action, and policy statement)
- hyperliquid’s network and token layer (via clarity act)
- hyperliquid’s collateral layer (via USDC, managed by circle/coinbase, two US regulated entities)
haven’t seen a thorough discussion on these impacts, so below is a brief summary of the current paths forward, and the rationale behind each:
(1) hyperliquid can ignore US market, go offshore only
(2) hyperliquid can build a US regulated wrapper
(3) hyperliquid can decentralize under ‘clarity act’
(4) hyperliquid can centralize the project, turn
$HYPE into a security
(5) hyperliquid can lobby for a change
these are the five, i'll start with the first
(1) hyperliquid can ignore US market, go offshore only
last week the CFTC approved kalshi’s BTCPERP as a futures contract on a DCM
the CFTC separately confirmed certain deribit perps may be treated as foreign futures through the coinbase FCM path
the implication is that regulated distributors for perps in the US may need a fully regulated venue, compliant customer funds path, approved product scope, surveillance, disclosures, and accountable corporate counterparties
without these in place
distributing hyperliquid liquidity, or offering hyperliquid perps, could look like routing US customers into an unapproved offshore venue
so the first option for hyperliquid is that they ignore the US market entirely
this approach would be similar to binance main exchange, which was ultimately forced to more aggressively block american customers after years of light effort
like binance, doing so would preserve hyperliquid’s product offshore, but cede US institutional access for the time being
(2) hyperliquid can build a US regulated wrapper
the second path is to find a way to build or partner with a US regulated wrapper to offer perps
under this path, offshore hyperliquid would remain a global crypto native venue, while a separate US affiliate or partner offers regulated perps through an FCM/DCM/DCO/FBOT style wrapper
you can think about this separate venue like Hyperliquid US™
in a perfect world, this is the ideal outcome for hyperliquid to target US users
however, this approach would likely require hyperliquid to ring fence (1) customer funds, (2) products, and (3)
$HYPE value capture separate from the main network
the ongoing separation of Binance US™ from Binance’s main exchange is instructive here as a case study
- customer funds may be ring fenced because US regulated futures infrastructure cannot commingle US customer collateral with offshore protocol margin
- products may be ring fenced because the US venue will likely require approved, deep, liquid digital commodity perps, not the entire hyperliquid long tail universe of assets
- revenue and
$HYPE value capture may be ring fenced because profits from a regulated corporate venue flowing into buybacks, burns, or assistance fund mechanics starts looking like token holders are economically participating in the profits of a corporate operating business, which could implicate US securities laws
net net, this model would likely require a significant rewrite of how the hyperliquid network works for US participation
(3) hyperliquid can decentralize under ‘clarity act’
the clarity act drafts offer a groundbreaking path for a lot of protocols to ‘progressively decentralize’ a network
i'll be writing more on this down the road
but for now
under clarity, progressive decentralization means reducing the role of the originator / related parties until the network and token are no longer under ‘coordinated control’
in exchange, a token may exist to capture *automatic* revenue flows originating out of the decentralized network, as long as the token value is primarily driven by the distributed ledger system rather than entrepreneurial or managerial efforts by a control group
in a vacuum, a token powering a decentralized network may support shifting the token’s classification from “security” to “commodity”
which is a big deal for many protocols and networks in the US
however, there are tradeoffs for projects optimizing for the ‘decentralization’ route
for hyperliquid, decentralization under clarity would likely mean the project would need to aggressively broaden validators, decentralize the listing process, decentralize oracle/risk controls, reduce controlled ownership, reduce emergency discretion decisions, make upgrades slower and more governance driven, among offloading other day to day product decisions
this would be a meaningful change, as a large part of the hyperliquid thesis has been underwriting the core team’s ability to make fast product decisions, in a manner they see best
ceding managerial control over the protocol to satisfy decentralization changes the trajectory of the project, and shouldn’t be taken lightly
this also coincides with a separate issue
the clarity act’s decentralization framework is not a DCM/DCO workaround. even if the hyperliquid network could eventually satisfy clarity’s decentralized governance framework, this would still not automatically permit hyperliquid to offer perps directly to US users
notably, both clarity and the ag committee text for clarity preserve the existing commodity exchange act (CEA) regime for futures, swaps, options, and leverage transactions
this is important for understanding clarity's intent, as the ag committee writes the CFTC/CEA side of market-structure legislation and this text signals that clarity act legislation is not a workaround for the existing CEA derivatives regime
simply put
this likely means any decentralization for hyperliquid will *not* erase the need to follow regulated derivatives market infrastructure without a regulated wrapper, which would require a significant rewrite of how hyperliquid works for US participation
(4) hyperliquid can centralize the company, turn
$HYPE into a security
this is probably the weakest option game theoretically, but worth mentioning
hyperliquid could become a corporate exchange, register or restructure
$HYPE into a security, build a regulated wrapper, and shift value capture away from token buybacks/burns and toward equity, licensing, or regulated-entity revenue
this is the cleanest for compliance because the entity, venue, governance, customer funds, disclosures, and revenue flows become legible to US regulators *today*
but it is the most damaging to the network value prop, which relies on the idea that protocol activity, incentives, and economics are all aligned around
$HYPE as a digital commodity, not a tokenized security
(5) hyperliquid can lobby for a change
there is a fifth option, which is to lobby for a change
here, related organizations could work hard to lobby the agencies to eventually create a bespoke framework for crypto-native perp venues like hyperliquid to directly target US audiences and capital
the work being done here by
@HyperliquidPC is instructive
there is some evidence this approach could work in part
the CFTC is clearly moving in a more innovative direction, and the kalshi / coinbase-deribit path may be the first conservative step before more liberal steps to include more unique design architectures
important to consider, however
even if the CFTC further opens up on perps to tailor approvals for decentralized networks
this wouldn’t solve a
$HYPE securities classification under the clarity act, which is a separate issue that may require network changes before US participation
without these changes
and under a current reading of clarity
i do find it impractical to think there will be a special token exemption for one project, while other projects are required to satisfy clarity act’s decentralization / network token framework
ok
in closing
these are the five US options as i currently see it, i'd be curious if folks in the legal / policy community are seeing others
there is also one final wrinkle, which is USDC now serving as hyperliquid’s ‘aligned quote asset’, with coinbase/circle tied into the broader treasury and routing strategy
a final point on this
if hyperliquid’s core settlement asset is USDC, then the system unquestionably inherits some degree of US regulatory control at the asset layer
but it also opens up a unique opportunity for significant policy shifts to support extending USD dominance, as flagged by
@blknoiz06
its an interesting dynamic worth keeping an eye on for policy reasons
i hope some of this discussion is useful for further dialog
as of today
whether you are bullish or bearish on hyperliquid’s US efforts from here probably depends on two things:
(1) what probability you assign to each of these paths; and
(2) hyperliquid’s ability to compete once they end up on one of these paths
disclosure: my fund
@collab_currency currently has exposure to
$HYPE and projects building in the hyperliquid ecosystem