Coinbase and Five Partners Back CFTC in Single-Stock Perpetuals Fight

Coinbase and five partners have filed an amicus brief supporting the CFTC's decision to allow single-stock perpetual futures to trade in the United States, stepping into a court fight in which the newly formed Capital Markets Alliance Association is asking a judge to block the products.

The filing, disclosed on November 10, 2026, by Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad in a seven-part post on X, anchors its argument in a number the plaintiffs themselves supplied: nearly $700 billion in stock perpetuals traded in August alone, none of it under U.S. rules. That figure, attributed to the opponents' own count, forms the core of the industry's defense — the products already exist, offshore, beyond U.S. market safeguards.

What do the filers actually argue?

Shirzad laid out three claims, each tied to mechanics rather than sentiment.

• Cost. "With a traditional future, the contract expires, and you continuously buy new ones just to maintain the same position, paying trading fees at each step," he wrote. A perpetual removes the rollovers.
• Pricing. "Instead, small payments pass between buyers and sellers every hour to keep the contract's price aligned to the asset's" — the funding-payment mechanism familiar from crypto markets, transplanted to equities.
• Heritage. The concept traces to Yale economist and Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller, who first proposed perpetual futures in 1992. Perpetual futures already trade on crypto assets, and on stocks in other jurisdictions.

For portfolio desks, the pitch is straightforward: a holder can hedge an existing equity position or gain exposure without rolling expiring contracts, cutting a recurring fee drag from the execution cost stack.

How do the filers answer the leverage objection?

Critics have flagged leverage and manipulation. Shirzad conceded part of the point — "it's true that it can magnify both gains and losses" — but paired it with a constraint: leverage for equity perpetuals is capped at the same regulatory levels that govern single-stock futures products.

The sharper argument followed. "Keeping them out of regulated US markets won't make them disappear," he wrote. "They already trade offshore, beyond US market safeguards." Bringing that flow under U.S. oversight, he argued, gives regulators visibility and investors protections unavailable offshore.

Note what the argument does not claim: it does not assert that onshoring the volume is guaranteed, nor does it quantify how much of the $700 billion monthly figure would migrate to U.S. venues. The visibility case rests on the premise that regulated access beats prohibition; whether flows actually return is an empirical question the brief cannot answer.

Who is on each side?

The opposition comes from the Capital Markets Alliance Association, described by Shirzad as "a newly formed trade group led by established legacy firms," which is asking a court to block the products. His framing carries a caveat of its own — the group's membership and funding were not detailed in the thread, and its litigation record is one case old.

Shirzad credited CFTC Chairman Selig by name for "opening the door to equity perps in the US," placing the regulator's approval decision — not merely a proposal — at the center of the dispute. The amicus filers number six in total: Coinbase plus five partners, whom Shirzad did not name in the thread.

"Investors deserve more choices and fewer unnecessary costs," he wrote. "They should be able to decide whether a new product offers them a better deal." A new product still has to meet U.S. rules — a standard the brief asserts the CFTC's approval process already applied.

What is at stake for execution desks?

If the court lets the CFTC's decision stand, U.S. venues gain a product that competes with single-stock futures on roll costs and with offshore perps venues on regulatory cover. If the Capital Markets Alliance Association prevails, the roughly $700 billion in monthly offshore volume stays where it is — outside U.S. oversight, and outside U.S. execution and clearing infrastructure.

The amicus brief, filed in the pending litigation, is now part of the record a court will weigh alongside the trade group's challenge.