The spike in trading volumes of crypto perpetual futures is drawing renewed attention from US consumer advocacy groups eager to influence regulatory policy. With retail investors fueling an unprecedented surge in activity, these groups are amplifying their efforts to ensure the implementation of stringent measures to manage the perceived risks associated with these financial products.
How are advocacy groups making an impact?
These groups are not just relying on traditional lobbying tactics within legislative corridors; they are actively engaging in formal processes to sway regulatory decisions. Formal submissions, legal filings, and engagement with state and federal regulators form their strategy to push for comprehensive rules ahead of new digital asset market regulations.
Washington, DC-based Better Markets, under the leadership of Dennis Kelleher, a former attorney, has been at the forefront of this effort. They’ve consistently advocated for tighter oversight of financial markets, particularly cryptocurrency products.
Better Markets has been prolific in its input, with more than 500 comment letters submitted to regulators, significantly influencing rules by being cited over 180 times. Their legal interventions further bolster their stringent regulatory stance.
Highlighting concerns on stablecoins, in July 2026, Better Markets critiqued a policy proposed by the National Credit Union Administration, warning of high-risk exposures for credit unions without proper safeguards.
Christopher Appel criticized the NCUA’s GENIUS Act stablecoin proposal, noting repeated problems such as the absence of clear capital standards, insufficient reserve diversification, and limited measures to address broader financial stability risks tied to stablecoins.
This intervention exemplifies how these organizations aim to mold future crypto regulations well ahead of implementation. Their consistent dialogue with policy-makers, coupled with legal strategies, could significantly impact the eventual shape of regulations, including for crypto perpetual futures.
Why are perpetual futures under scrutiny?
Perpetual futures represent a critical aspect of digital currency markets, attracting scrutiny from regulatory bodies due to their unique and unregulated nature. Distinct from conventional futures, they feature no expiration, allowing continuous leveraged holdings supported by a funding-rate mechanism to synchronize contract prices with spot market prices.
Cornell University research reveals that perpetual futures constitute 93% of crypto derivatives trades. a16z’s figures highlight $86.2 trillion in perpetual futures trades on centralized exchanges last year—an impressive rise of 47% from the prior year. Similarly, decentralized exchanges saw a staggering 346% increase, reaching $6.7 trillion.
Financial Times and other outlets have flagged the dangers inherent in perpetual futures, reflecting growing concerns within regulatory and investment circles.
Main risks for retail investors
Consumer protection bodies have identified various risks associated with crypto perpetual futures:
- High leverage: Typically up to 100x, exposing traders to dramatic losses from minimal price shifts.
- 24/7 trading: Increases potential for overnight losses absent in traditional markets.
- Automatic liquidation: Position loss can occur swiftly during volatility due to pre-set margin breaches.
- Funding-rate payments: Expenses incurred in aligning contract prices with spot rates can accumulate and cause significant losses over time.
Platforms offering leverage from 1x to more than 100x highlight the danger of liquidation during volatile periods, posing financial risks for traders, says Chainalysis.
Even though perpetual futures bring liquidity to the market, the associated costs and risks from leverage and funding mechanisms are substantial, as described by Cornell University research.
Efforts by advocacy groups to avert these risks stem from concerns over retail investors’ potential underestimation of the dangers associated with high leverage, automatic liquidations, and non-stop trading.
Unresolved regulatory landscape
The regulatory future for perpetual futures in the US remains unsettled. Most trading occurs on foreign exchanges, complicating US authorities’ regulatory control, as noted by Chainalysis. Major platforms commonly prohibit US-based traders from accessing these complex products.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission must navigate limited enforcement capabilities in this primarily offshore trading environment.
Though the concept dates back to economist Robert Shiller’s work in 1993, regulatory frameworks have not yet adapted to the current global trading realities. This gap in regulation leaves investors exposed while driving advocacy for stricter oversight.
With these futures forming a contentious and risky element in the crypto landscape, consumer groups remain steadfast in seeking regulations addressing leverage, continuous market activities, and liquidation risks to better protect retail investors.
