Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan said U.S. regulators should oversee the financial firms that operate trading platforms on his blockchain rather than regulate the network itself. Yan made the comments Thursday in a Bloomberg interview, arguing that companies running markets on Hyperliquid should carry the compliance burden, much like financial firms that rely on internet infrastructure.

The position matters because the network behind the well-known perpetual futures venue of the same name still bars U.S. customers, even as Kraken parent Payward prepares to offer American investors derivatives built on Hyperliquid's technology through a regulated exchange. Yan's proposal would let Wall Street firms build trading businesses on the network without requiring the blockchain itself to operate as a regulated exchange.

Yan's case for regulating platforms, not the Hyperliquid blockchain

Yan argued that oversight should fall on the entities that actually run markets and exercise control over them, not on the underlying network. "The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls, and indeed the deployers are the ones that exercise these controls," Yan said.

He likened the network to the plumbing of the internet, with accountability falling on the firms that operate markets on top of it rather than on the network providing liquidity and trade processing, according to Bloomingbit. Under this framing, the venues that deal directly with users would shoulder the compliance obligations in place of the base protocol.

The executive's argument is that trading platforms, not the underlying blockchain, should face regulatory scrutiny, KuCoin reported. He is seeking an exemption for the blockchain infrastructure from direct oversight while saying platforms built on top of it should remain subject to regulatory requirements.

Payward plan would test the layered approach

Kraken's parent company, Payward, intends to bring derivatives products powered by Hyperliquid's technology to U.S. investors via a regulated exchange, even though Hyperliquid's own perpetual futures market remains unavailable to them. For Hyperliquid, the arrangement means it could add a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated operator while keeping its perps market closed to U.S. customers.

Hyperliquid does not currently hold a CFTC exchange license and restricts U.S. users, positioning itself as infrastructure rather than a regulated intermediary, according to Crypto Briefing. The regulatory classification of on-chain market infrastructure remains a central issue for platforms like Hyperliquid seeking to operate within U.S. compliance.

Yan spoke following an August statement from President Donald Trump that the CFTC was moving to bring Hyperliquid under U.S. federal oversight, according to CoinDesk. Neither outlet detailed which specific agency or legislative process the founder is engaging with, and no formal regulatory response or decision has been reported.

Infrastructure supplier, not a Wall Street replacement

Yan emphasized that replacing Wall Street financial institutions is not Hyperliquid's aim. "We're not trying to displace anything," he said, adding that the technology can benefit firms that currently operate markets in a more traditional setting.

Rather, the company aims to provide trading technology to those firms, similar to how Amazon Web Services supplies computing infrastructure to businesses, according to Bloomingbit. Yan said the company is actively working toward becoming infrastructure that underpins many kinds of financial markets.

A debate over where crypto regulation applies

Hyperliquid is a decentralized exchange for perpetual futures contracts that runs on its own dedicated blockchain rather than an existing network such as Ethereum. Because of that design, the project sits squarely within a wider dispute over how regulators should draw boundaries in crypto markets, dividing the foundational protocol from the applications and interfaces built above it.

The argument echoes a position long advanced by parts of the decentralized finance industry, where developers have repeatedly contended that software protocols ought not to be treated like financial intermediaries. The SEC and CFTC have in the past interpreted regulated activity in crypto more broadly, according to KuCoin.

If regulators eventually accept a layered approach that separates blockchain infrastructure from trading platforms, it could reshape how decentralized exchanges are supervised, KuCoin reported. Standalone-chain protocols such as Hyperliquid could then contend that their base layer merits treatment distinct from centralized exchanges offering similar products.

Market signals and what to watch

Confidence that Hyperliquid will hit $100 by the end of 2026 has weakened in market pricing, with YES odds sliding from 72% to 47% over the past week, according to Crypto Briefing. The outlet said the regulatory debate may be shaping how traders view Hyperliquid's compliance standing and operational viability in the U.S.

Crypto Briefing said observers should monitor further statements from U.S. regulatory bodies like the CFTC, as their decisions could significantly affect how Hyperliquid is classified and how its market behaves. The outlet added that fresh partnerships or backing from major financial entities could point to rising confidence in the project's regulatory path.

The practical effect on Hyperliquid's trading volumes or token activity is not yet clear from current reporting, according to KuCoin. How U.S. regulators respond will depend heavily on broader market structure legislation still moving through Congress and on agency rulemaking.

Conclusion

Yan has laid out a clear position: U.S. regulators should supervise the financial firms that run markets on Hyperliquid, not the blockchain itself, which he casts as neutral infrastructure akin to internet plumbing. The argument is already being tested in practice, with Kraken parent Payward planning to offer U.S. investors derivatives through a CFTC-regulated exchange using Hyperliquid's technology while the platform's own perpetual futures market stays closed to American customers. The next concrete step is a response from U.S. regulators, particularly the CFTC, whose stance on the layered approach could determine how Hyperliquid and similar standalone-chain protocols are classified and supervised.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan propose about U.S. regulation?

Jeff Yan said U.S. regulators should oversee the financial firms that operate trading platforms on Hyperliquid rather than regulate the blockchain itself. He argued companies running markets on the network should meet regulatory requirements, much like financial firms using internet infrastructure, in a Bloomberg interview on Thursday.

Is Hyperliquid's perpetual futures market open to U.S. customers?

No. Hyperliquid's perpetual futures trading platform remains closed to U.S. customers, and the company does not hold a CFTC exchange license. It restricts U.S. users while positioning itself as infrastructure rather than a regulated intermediary.

What is Payward planning with Hyperliquid's technology?

Kraken parent Payward plans to offer U.S. investors derivatives using Hyperliquid's technology through a regulated exchange. The arrangement would let Hyperliquid add a CFTC-regulated operator even though its own perpetual futures market remains unavailable to American customers.

What did President Trump say about Hyperliquid and the CFTC?

President Donald Trump said in August that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S. under federal regulations, according to CoinDesk. Yan's recent comments follow that statement.

How have prediction markets reacted to Hyperliquid's regulatory push?

Confidence that Hyperliquid will hit $100 by the end of 2026 has weakened in market pricing, with YES odds sliding from 72% to 47% over the past week, according to Crypto Briefing. The outlet said the regulatory debate may be shaping how traders view Hyperliquid's U.S. compliance and viability.