US CFTC Chair Clarifies Perpetual Contract Controversy: No Fixed Maturity Date Does Not Affect Futures Status, Funding Rate Mechanism Aids Price Anchoring

Odaily Odaily reports that U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig posted on X to clarify several misunderstandings regarding perpetual futures contracts and to address the controversy surrounding the CFTC's recent approval of related contracts.

Mike Selig stated that the Commodity Exchange Act and relevant CFTC rules do not explicitly require a "futures contract" to have a fixed maturity or delivery date. Since Congress has not clearly defined the term, futures contract classification primarily relies on judicial precedent and CFTC interpretations, and a fixed maturity date is not a necessary condition.

Regarding the claim that "the BTCPERP contract approved by the CFTC allows U.S. users to use 250x leverage," high leverage is not an inherent characteristic of the perpetual contract structure itself, but rather a feature of previous offshore trading platform models. Perpetual contracts regulated by the CFTC will adhere to the same leverage limits as other regulated futures products.

In response to criticism that "the CFTC did not provide industry participants with an opportunity for input and feedback," the CFTC issued a public request for comment on "perpetual contracts" and "24/7 trading" in April 2025 and received over 100 responses from industry participants, including several CFTC-registered entities. Furthermore, addressing concerns that the funding rate mechanism could incur high costs and induce adverse market behavior, when considering the costs of opening and rolling over traditional term futures contracts, the annualized holding cost of perpetual contract funding rates is generally comparable to that of traditional futures. In fact, the funding rate mechanism helps maintain the contract's price anchor to the spot market and serves as a market disciplining force.