Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan is proposing a regulatory model in which U.S. authorities supervise the financial companies that operate trading markets on the blockchain, rather than treating the underlying network itself as a regulated exchange.
Yan made the case in an interview with Bloomberg, according to CoinDesk. His position comes as the role of Hyperliquid technology in U.S. derivatives markets begins to take shape, even though Hyperliquid’s own perpetual futures platform remains unavailable to customers in the United States.
Regulation should follow the operators
Yan argued that the firms deploying trading systems on Hyperliquid should be responsible for meeting regulatory obligations. In his view, those companies—not the blockchain infrastructure—are the entities that control how a market operates and therefore should be accountable to regulators.
“The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls, and indeed the deployers are the ones that exercise these controls,” Yan said in the Bloomberg interview.
The distinction is important because a blockchain is the underlying technical network, while a trading platform is a business that may operate markets, manage access and provide financial products. Yan’s proposal would place regulatory responsibility at the business layer rather than requiring the network itself to register and operate as a regulated exchange.
That structure could allow Wall Street companies to create regulated trading businesses using Hyperliquid’s technology. It would also mean that different operators could be responsible for their own compliance while relying on the same blockchain infrastructure.
Payward plans a U.S. derivatives route
A practical example is emerging through Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken. Payward plans to offer U.S. investors derivatives based on Hyperliquid’s technology through a regulated exchange.
The plan would give Hyperliquid a connection to a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated operator, despite the fact that Hyperliquid’s own perpetual futures market is still closed to U.S. customers. Perpetual futures are derivatives contracts that track an asset’s price and do not have a fixed expiration date.
The arrangement illustrates the difference between access to Hyperliquid’s technology and direct access to Hyperliquid’s existing trading platform. U.S. investors would not necessarily be able to use Hyperliquid’s own perpetual futures market. Instead, they could be offered derivatives through a separate, regulated business using the network’s technology.
For the blockchain, that could create a path into the U.S. market without requiring Hyperliquid itself to become the regulated exchange. For financial firms, it could provide a way to build products on blockchain infrastructure while placing the formal regulatory obligations on the operating entity.
A response to growing regulatory attention
Yan’s comments follow remarks by President Donald Trump in August that the CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States under federal regulations. The founder’s proposal offers a specific interpretation of how that could happen: regulators would oversee the companies running controlled financial activities on the network rather than the network as a whole.
Yan also said Hyperliquid is not seeking to replace traditional market operators. “We’re not trying to displace anything,” he said. “In fact, I think the technology can benefit everyone who currently operates markets in a more traditional setting.”
The debate centers on where responsibility lies when blockchain infrastructure is used for financial markets. If the companies that deploy systems control access and market functions, Yan’s argument is that those companies are the appropriate regulatory targets. The outcome could determine whether established financial firms can use Hyperliquid technology while maintaining a conventional regulated structure.
Moneyiar market picture
Moneyiar market data at 21:03 on October 15, 2026, showed Hyperliquid’s HYPE token at $81.7801968783, up 1% over 24 hours but down 3.14% over seven days.
Other listed assets were also lower over the week:
- Four (FORM): $0.2550024074, down 0.97% in 24 hours and 3.78% in seven days.
- aelf (ELF): $0.0625577753, down 0.23% in 24 hours and 3.21% in seven days.
- Notcoin (NOT): $0.0004199111, down 1.86% in 24 hours and 4.21% in seven days.
These market figures describe token price movements and do not indicate whether any particular trading product or platform is available to U.S. customers.
