Hyperliquid is taking its perpetuals fight to Europe.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center has urged the European Commission to classify crypto perpetual futures under MiFID II rather than MiCA in its first regulatory filing outside the U.S.
The argument is pretty straightforward.
Perpetuals are derivatives. So their regulatory treatment should depend on what the product actually does, not whether the trade happens on a public blockchain.
That distinction matters.
MiFID II is already the EU framework for financial instruments and derivatives, while MiCA primarily covers crypto assets and services that aren't already regulated under existing financial legislation.
HPC is also asking the EU to recognize something interesting about onchain markets.
Trades, funding payments and liquidations can be publicly verifiable on a blockchain, potentially helping satisfy some transparency and recordkeeping requirements without forcing firms to duplicate information that is already available onchain.
Personally, I think the bigger story is regulatory recognition of onchain markets as actual financial infrastructure.
If Europe accepts that a derivative doesn't become a different product simply because it runs on a blockchain, that could create a much clearer path for regulated firms to build onchain markets.
But this is still a policy proposal.
The European Commission hasn't adopted HPC's position, and the MiCA review is still underway.
The interesting question now is whether regulators treat public blockchains as a problem to control, or infrastructure that can actually help satisfy existing financial rules.
That decision could shape how big onchain derivatives become in Europe.
$BTC #BTC Price Analysis# $HYPE #Altcoin Season#
The Hyperliquid Policy Center has urged the European Commission to classify crypto perpetual futures under MiFID II rather than MiCA in its first regulatory filing outside the U.S.
The argument is pretty straightforward.
Perpetuals are derivatives. So their regulatory treatment should depend on what the product actually does, not whether the trade happens on a public blockchain.
That distinction matters.
MiFID II is already the EU framework for financial instruments and derivatives, while MiCA primarily covers crypto assets and services that aren't already regulated under existing financial legislation.
HPC is also asking the EU to recognize something interesting about onchain markets.
Trades, funding payments and liquidations can be publicly verifiable on a blockchain, potentially helping satisfy some transparency and recordkeeping requirements without forcing firms to duplicate information that is already available onchain.
Personally, I think the bigger story is regulatory recognition of onchain markets as actual financial infrastructure.
If Europe accepts that a derivative doesn't become a different product simply because it runs on a blockchain, that could create a much clearer path for regulated firms to build onchain markets.
But this is still a policy proposal.
The European Commission hasn't adopted HPC's position, and the MiCA review is still underway.
The interesting question now is whether regulators treat public blockchains as a problem to control, or infrastructure that can actually help satisfy existing financial rules.
That decision could shape how big onchain derivatives become in Europe.
$BTC #BTC Price Analysis# $HYPE #Altcoin Season#
