Trump Wants Hyperliquid in the US: What It Means for DeFi Accounting
President Donald Trump has publicly stated his administration is working to bring decentralized exchange Hyperliquid into the United States "in a fully compliant and legal fashion." For accounting firms, CFOs, and auditors with digital asset exposure, that sentence carries weight well beyond a political headline. A regulated US perpetual futures venue built on DeFi infrastructure would create new transaction classification questions, new counterparty risk assessments, and new audit trail requirements — and the regulatory clock has already started ticking.
What Trump Actually Said and What Is Already Moving
Hyperliquid is a decentralized exchange whose perpetual futures contracts have grown sharply in use over the past year, attracting traders who want round-the-clock exposure to crypto price movements. The platform currently blocks US persons under its own terms of service, though the underlying Layer 1 blockchain remains technically accessible. Trump indicated last month that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would work to bring the platform into the US market.
The Bitnomial Route
Shortly after Trump's statement, a crypto exchange announced it was working with the CFTC to offer registered US users access to a selection of crypto perpetuals linked to markets on Hyperliquid, routed through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated platform. This is the specific mechanism now on the table: Hyperliquid would supply technology, liquidity, or market design to a separate, regulated US product — without opening its existing permissionless venue to US persons directly.
Ashley Ebersole, formerly senior counsel at the SEC and now co-founder and chief legal officer at real-world assets platform tx, told The Block that partnerships of this type "provide the regulatory infrastructure that would have added months or years to Hyperliquid's US roadmap if pursued on its own." The assets offered would still need individual regulatory approval, but the involvement of an already-registered intermediary materially compresses the timeline.
A Separate Product, Not a Direct Onshore Listing
Nansen's research team described the likely structure plainly: it would be "a separate US product built around Hyperliquid's infrastructure." US users under this arrangement would face know-your-customer (KYC) checks, sanctions screening, customer-fund protections, and a clearly identified legal entity responsible for the product. The trade-off, according to the same analysis, is that they would receive access to fewer markets, lower leverage ceilings, and tighter risk controls than users on the permissionless venue.
That distinction between the onshore regulated layer and the offshore permissionless market is precisely what drives the accounting complexity discussed below.
The Regulatory Jigsaw: CFTC, SEC, and Timeline Risks
Perpetual futures contracts sit in an awkward regulatory gap. They do not expire like traditional futures, which raises classification questions under both CFTC and SEC remits. Ebersole confirmed that both agencies would likely need to be involved in drafting revised interpretive rules covering custody standards and order-routing mechanics.
What Each Agency Needs to Do
The CFTC moved first. In May 2026, it cleared the way for bitcoin perpetual futures to be listed in the US. Coinbase separately filed with the SEC in September 2026 seeking sign-off to list equity perpetuals. Industry groups have written to both agencies asking them to adopt a harmonised framework specifically for perpetual contracts, signalling that a joined-up rulebook does not yet exist.
Rulemaking at either agency is slow by design. Ebersole estimated that even under a favourable political environment, revisions to the rulebook could take up to a year. The 2028 presidential election introduces a hard deadline: priorities not locked in before then could be reversed by a subsequent administration. "In a case like that, it really just becomes dependent on what the next administration's appetite is," Ebersole said.
Legacy Market Resistance
CME Group's CEO has repeatedly characterised crypto perpetual products as a "disaster waiting to happen" and has pushed back on regulatory approvals in the space. Incumbents, according to Ebersole, can pursue two strategies: demand that new entrants comply with existing rules as written, or argue that the products themselves are impermissible under the current rulebook — both of which slow the process for new entrants. The same lobbying dynamic visible in the stablecoin legislation debate is likely to play out here as well.
Critics outside the industry have been more direct. An associate director with Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress characterised the administration's approach as having "a checkered history" that risks financial instability, arguing that regulators appear to be repeating past errors rather than learning from them.
DeFi Accounting Implications for Firms and CFOs
If a regulated US Hyperliquid-linked product launches, it reshapes several accounting workflows that firms and finance teams need to prepare for now, not after go-live.
Transaction Classification Under ASC 350-60
FASB's fair-value model under ASC 350-60 applies to in-scope crypto assets. Perpetual futures contracts, however, are derivatives — they fall under ASC 815, not ASC 350-60. That means gains and losses on regulated US crypto perps would be marked to market through the income statement each period under derivative accounting, with no optional fair-value election available for the position itself. For any entity currently treating spot crypto exposure under ASC 350-60, adding a perp overlay creates a mixed accounting model that requires careful balance-sheet segmentation and disclosure.
Custody and Control
The Bitnomial intermediary structure introduces a regulated custodian into the flow. Under the SEC's Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121) framework, entities that hold crypto assets on behalf of customers are required to record both a liability and a corresponding asset on the balance sheet. Accounting teams need to confirm early whether the intermediary layer triggers SAB 121 obligations for any client-facing activity, or whether positions are held on a principal basis and therefore demand a different treatment.
Margin and Collateral Accounting
Perp trading requires margin. Cash or crypto collateral posted to a regulated US venue would need to be classified correctly: as restricted cash if it cannot be withdrawn freely, or as a financial asset pledged as collateral with appropriate disclosure under ASC 860. If crypto assets are used as collateral, the entity must assess whether a sale or disposal event has occurred for tax purposes at the point of posting — a question that does not have a settled answer in all fact patterns.
Funding Rate Treatment
Perpetual contracts use funding rates — periodic cash settlements between long and short holders — to keep the contract price anchored to the spot market. These are economically similar to interest but are not legally interest. Firms need a documented policy for whether funding payments are classified as interest income or expense, trading income, or a component of the derivative's fair value adjustment. The IRS has not issued specific guidance on funding rate characterisation, so the chosen treatment must be defensible and consistently applied.
Tax Implications for US Filers
For individual US taxpayers and entities trading perps on a regulated domestic venue, the tax picture has several layers worth flagging now.
Section 1256 Contracts
Regulated futures contracts traded on a qualified board or exchange qualify for Section 1256 treatment: gains and losses are split 60% long-term and 40% short-term, regardless of holding period, and positions are marked to market at year-end. Whether a regulated US Hyperliquid-linked perpetual contract qualifies as a Section 1256 contract will depend on how the CFTC classifies the product. If it does qualify, the tax treatment is materially more favourable than short-term capital gains rates. If it does not — because it is structured differently from a standard futures contract — all gains would likely be short-term. This classification question should be monitored closely as the CFTC's interpretive rules develop.
Wash Sale Rules and Mark-to-Market Elections
Crypto assets are currently not subject to the wash sale rules under Section 1091, though legislative proposals to close that gap exist. If a trader holds both spot crypto and a perp on the same underlying through a regulated venue, and a wash sale rule is enacted or the product is deemed a "security," position netting becomes far more complex. Traders active in both the spot and derivatives layer should maintain granular records of every open and closed position to avoid being caught flat-footed by a rule change.
Offshore vs. Onshore Activity
US persons who currently access Hyperliquid via the underlying chain despite the platform's terms of service face a different set of tax questions entirely: FBAR and Form 8938 filing obligations may apply depending on account values, and the absence of a regulated intermediary means there is no Form 1099 to rely on. A shift to the regulated onshore product would simplify reporting — but would not resolve past years' obligations for anyone who has been active offshore.
What 24/7 Markets Mean for Closing-Price Valuations
US equity markets have long operated on a fixed session: 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, closed weekends and holidays. A regulated crypto perp venue, by contrast, trades continuously. CME already offers near-24-hour liquidity five days a week, and a fully live Hyperliquid-linked US venue would likely push further toward continuous operation.
For accounting teams, this matters at period close. Valuations of open derivative positions require a reference price. If the venue trades around the clock, the "closing price" used for mark-to-market purposes needs a clearly defined, documented methodology — one that is consistently applied and auditable. Firms that have already built valuation policies for CME crypto futures are ahead of the curve; those that have not need to start drafting those policies now, before the product launches.
On the crypto compliance and reporting pillar, we cover the full range of DeFi classification and reporting issues that flow from developments like this one. For context on how perpetual products fit into the broader crypto market-structure shift, see also our piece on the Coinbase equity perpetuals SEC filing and the accounting considerations that come with it. Firms monitoring the digital asset accounting software landscape should also track the FASB's ongoing GAAP improvements, which touch closely related fair-value questions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Hyperliquid available to US traders now?
No. Hyperliquid's terms of service restrict access to US persons. The underlying blockchain is technically accessible, but the platform's own terms prohibit US use. The proposed arrangement via Bitnomial would create a separate, regulated US-facing product rather than opening the existing venue directly.
Would a regulated US crypto perp qualify for Section 1256 tax treatment?
Potentially, but it is not guaranteed. Section 1256 treatment — the 60/40 long-term/short-term split with year-end mark-to-market — applies to regulated futures contracts on a qualified board or exchange. The CFTC's classification of the specific product structure will determine eligibility. That classification has not yet been determined, and traders should not assume favourable treatment until formal guidance is issued.
How should firms account for funding rate payments on perpetual contracts?
There is no specific authoritative guidance. Firms need a documented, consistently applied policy. Common approaches treat funding payments as an adjustment to the derivative's fair value or as trading income/expense. The chosen treatment should be disclosed and applied consistently across all periods.
Does SAB 121 apply to a firm that routes client trades through a regulated intermediary like Bitnomial?
It depends on whether the firm holds crypto assets on behalf of customers. If client assets pass through or are custodied at any point by the firm, SAB 121's balance-sheet gross-up requirements may apply. Legal and accounting counsel should review the specific custody and flow-of-funds structure before any product launch.
What is the timeline for a regulated Hyperliquid-linked US product to launch?
Based on the information available, even under an accelerated regulatory environment, rulemaking at the CFTC and SEC could take up to a year. The Bitnomial partnership compresses that timeline relative to a standalone application, but individual asset approvals are still required. The 2028 election cycle creates an effective deadline for the current administration to complete the process.
Source: The Block