🔥CFTC slams CME: You can also list perpetual contracts yourselves—what are you suing for!
#CFTC请求驳回CME永续合约诉讼
On September 2, the CFTC formally filed a motion with the court, asking it to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the CME Group over its approval of Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual contracts. The CFTC’s wording was quite direct: “This lawsuit is nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill.”
So what’s this case about?
On June 18, CME sued the CFTC, alleging that when the CFTC approved Kalshi’s perpetual contracts, it violated the Dodd-Frank Act. The central dispute is whether perpetual contracts are “futures” or “swaps.” If they’re classified as “swaps,” a different regulatory framework would apply—affecting CME’s market position.
The CFTC’s reasons for dismissal are very straightforward:
① CME can do it too—the harm was self-inflicted. Any CFTC-registered exchange can list digital commodity perpetual contracts. CME could completely launch the same product, but it chose not to. The CFTC directly stated that CME has not identified any restrictions that would prevent it from providing the same product.
② There’s no evidence of actual competitive harm. After the approval order was issued, CME’s own crypto futures trading volume actually increased. And even if Kalshi’s perpetual contract product were reclassified, it would still be able to continue trading.
③ CME itself has said customers don’t want perpetual contracts. The CFTC also dug up records of CME’s prior public statements that customers did not request perpetual contract products—if customers don’t want them, then how could a competitor launching them possibly harm you?
Potential impact on the market:
If the court supports the CFTC’s dismissal motion, Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual contracts will continue to be regulated as “futures,” paving the way for more similar products to be launched within the compliance framework. CME must respond by October 2.
One-sentence takeaway: The CFTC’s move this time is ruthless— it points directly to the fact that CME can do it too, customers don’t want it anyway, and trading volumes are still rising—three strikes all aimed at “you weren’t actually harmed at all.” If CME loses the case, it won’t just lose face—it could also open the compliance door for competitors.
Guys, do you think CME can win this lawsuit?
$BTC
$ETH
#CFTC请求驳回CME永续合约诉讼
On September 2, the CFTC formally filed a motion with the court, asking it to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the CME Group over its approval of Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual contracts. The CFTC’s wording was quite direct: “This lawsuit is nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill.”
So what’s this case about?
On June 18, CME sued the CFTC, alleging that when the CFTC approved Kalshi’s perpetual contracts, it violated the Dodd-Frank Act. The central dispute is whether perpetual contracts are “futures” or “swaps.” If they’re classified as “swaps,” a different regulatory framework would apply—affecting CME’s market position.
The CFTC’s reasons for dismissal are very straightforward:
① CME can do it too—the harm was self-inflicted. Any CFTC-registered exchange can list digital commodity perpetual contracts. CME could completely launch the same product, but it chose not to. The CFTC directly stated that CME has not identified any restrictions that would prevent it from providing the same product.
② There’s no evidence of actual competitive harm. After the approval order was issued, CME’s own crypto futures trading volume actually increased. And even if Kalshi’s perpetual contract product were reclassified, it would still be able to continue trading.
③ CME itself has said customers don’t want perpetual contracts. The CFTC also dug up records of CME’s prior public statements that customers did not request perpetual contract products—if customers don’t want them, then how could a competitor launching them possibly harm you?
Potential impact on the market:
If the court supports the CFTC’s dismissal motion, Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual contracts will continue to be regulated as “futures,” paving the way for more similar products to be launched within the compliance framework. CME must respond by October 2.
One-sentence takeaway: The CFTC’s move this time is ruthless— it points directly to the fact that CME can do it too, customers don’t want it anyway, and trading volumes are still rising—three strikes all aimed at “you weren’t actually harmed at all.” If CME loses the case, it won’t just lose face—it could also open the compliance door for competitors.
Guys, do you think CME can win this lawsuit?
$BTC
$ETH