Hyperliquid has outlined Payward’s plan to become its first CFTC-regulated HIP-3* market deployer, with Kraken’s parent seeking to offer onchain perpetual futures to US clients through Bitnomial, subject to regulatory approval.
Summary
- Payward plans regulated US perpetual futures on Hyperliquid through Bitnomial, subject to regulatory approval.
- NinjaTrader Clearing would carry client accounts, with trading restricted to customers on both entities’ allowlists.
- HIP-3* permissioning remains optional, leaving existing markets unchanged while preliminary specifications undergo testnet review.
- Bitnomial would create and administer the proposed markets, taking responsibility for contract clearing and settlement.
Hyperliquid said in an Oct. 26 X post that Bitnomial would create, own, and administer the proposed markets, while handling contract clearing and settlement. NinjaTrader Clearing, Payward’s CFTC-registered futures commission merchant, would carry customer accounts if the arrangement receives approval.
The proposed markets would use Hyperliquid as their infrastructure layer, with the regulated Payward entities responsible for operating the products and serving clients. Payward first announced the initiative on Sept. 16, naming Hyperliquid as the first protocol it planned to use for US onchain perpetual futures.
Hyperliquid HIP-3* would restrict access through allowlists
For its planned US offering, Payward has described an account structure requiring customers to complete onboarding with NinjaTrader and appear on both NinjaTrader’s and Bitnomial’s allowlists. A futures account with the registered broker would provide access to the new contracts.
The company’s September announcement said Hyperliquid’s public blockchain would match and record trades through its onchain order book. Contracts would be listed under Bitnomial Exchange’s rules, with regulatory obligations held by the named exchange, clearinghouse and brokerage entities.
Payward’s September plan was previously covered by crypto.news, including its proposed division of responsibilities between Bitnomial and NinjaTrader. The announcement described a separate set of contracts deployed through the regulated entities.
In the Oct. 26 post, Hyperliquid called the optional permissioning functionality HIP-3*. Its activation involves an onchain allowlist that the deployer, or appointed sub-deployers, manages.
An initial release is available on testnet, where the specifications remain preliminary and can change following feedback. Hyperliquid said support for the optional deployer configuration would come through a future network upgrade.
Permissioning would leave existing HIP-3 markets unchanged
Hyperliquid described HIP-3* as an optional addition to HIP-3, leaving existing markets unchanged. Deployers can decide whether to use the functionality for their own deployments.
The protocol said independent operators would retain control and responsibility for their markets while using Hyperliquid’s blockchain infrastructure. Its stated purpose for the added configuration is to let deployers operate markets consistently with requirements applicable to them.
“Hyperliquid is a neutral infrastructure layer with the goal of supporting large parts of the financial system,” the project wrote.
Earlier permissioned-market testing was described on Sept. 3, when Hyperliquid co-founder Jeffrey Yan outlined deployer-managed participant lists. The preliminary design allowed operators to appoint sub-deployers to handle access without handing those decisions to the core development team.
Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 documentation assigns market definitions, contract specifications, oracle prices, and leverage limits to deployers. Builder-deployed perpetuals use HyperCore’s margining system and order books, while each deployed perpetual exchange has independent margining, order books, and settings.
The documentation lists a 500,000 HYPE mainnet staking requirement, maintained for at least 183 days after deployment. It describes that requirement for HIP-3 generally; the October post does not specify separate staking terms for Payward’s proposed markets.
The documented settlement process lets a deployer halt trading in an asset, cancel its orders, and settle positions at the current mark price. The same action can resume trading. Once every asset has been settled, the documentation says the deployer’s required stake can be unstaked.
Bitnomial’s acquisition preceded the onchain proposal
Payward completed its Bitnomial acquisition in May, bringing exchange, clearing and brokerage capabilities into its US derivatives business. Its May 1 completion announcement said Bitnomial would retain its existing licenses, regulatory structure and third-party clearing operations within the group.
The acquisition announcement initially valued the transaction at up to $550 million in cash and stock. Coverage published May 4 noted that final terms had not been disclosed when the deal closed.
At completion, Payward co-CEO Arjun Sethi said the product rollout would begin with spot margin on Kraken, followed by perpetuals and options. The company described plans to make the infrastructure available across Kraken, NinjaTrader and Payward Services.
Its business-to-business offering would let banks, brokerages, fintechs and payment providers offer regulated derivatives through an integration, according to the completion announcement. Payward had previously acquired a licensed UK crypto futures platform in 2019 and launched an EU-regulated derivatives offering in 2025.
Bitnomial Exchange received its designated contract market status in April 2020. The CFTC’s designation notice required compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act, applicable commission regulations, and the representations made in the exchange’s application.
Policy center has separately proposed compute perpetuals
On Oct. 20, Hyperliquid Policy Center asked the CFTC to permit US futures and perpetual contracts tied to GPU rental prices and AI inference costs. CEO Jake Chervinsky and senior counsel Brad Bourque signed the response to the agency’s request for comments on compute derivatives.
The organization argued that data-center operators, lenders and AI developers face continuing exposure to computing prices. Its submission supported both dated futures and perpetual contracts, depending on the costs being hedged.
Proposed safeguards in the letter included leverage limits, caps on funding rates, and transparent pricing benchmarks. The policy center supported dated futures for scheduled expenses such as planned AI training runs.
