Ondo Finance is pressing U.S. regulators to modernize rules for tokenized markets and perpetual futures, arguing that existing securities and derivatives law can support blockchain-native market structure without recreating every convention of traditional finance. On September 2, 2026, Ondo highlighted three comment letters submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission covering perpetual futures, portfolio margining and market-data reporting.
The timing matters. U.S. agencies are actively developing crypto policy while Congress struggles to advance the broader CLARITY Act. Ondo’s position is essentially that regulators do not need to wait for a complete rewrite of financial law before allowing more on-chain market infrastructure. Instead, rules should focus on outcomes such as price convergence, risk control and reliable records rather than requiring blockchain systems to imitate older settlement technology.
Ondo filed three separate letters around one market-structure argument
Ondo says the three filings address different technical questions but share one principle: regulators should judge whether a mechanism performs the required economic function, not whether it looks like the legacy mechanism regulators are familiar with. In traditional markets, many rules were built around specific technologies, settlement cycles and intermediaries that existed when those rules were written.
Blockchain infrastructure can perform some of those functions differently. On-chain settlement can create continuously verifiable records, smart contracts can automate margin calculations, and perpetual futures can use funding rates instead of fixed expiration dates to pull derivative prices toward spot markets. Ondo is asking regulators to evaluate those mechanisms on their actual risk and performance.
Why stock perpetual futures are central to the debate
Perpetual futures, commonly called perps, are derivatives that do not expire on a fixed date. Traditional futures contracts use an expiration date and settlement process that helps the futures price converge with the underlying asset. Perpetual contracts use recurring funding payments and mark-to-market mechanics to encourage a similar relationship without a final expiry.
Ondo argues that perpetual futures tied to individual stocks can fit within existing U.S. security-futures law if regulators recognize that continuous funding can perform the convergence function normally associated with expiration. The company is not claiming that such products should operate without oversight. Its argument is that the legal framework can accommodate the product design without forcing it into an old operational template.
Ondo’s offshore activity gives the proposal a real-world test case
Reports on Ondo’s filings say its Panama-based affiliate already offers stablecoin-settled perpetual futures linked to U.S.-listed stocks outside the United States. The company reported about $8 billion in cumulative trading volume as of August 14, roughly six weeks after launch. That figure reflects offshore activity and should not be read as evidence that the same products are currently approved for U.S. retail traders.
The offshore experience is relevant because Ondo can point to actual market behavior rather than only a theoretical design. Regulators can examine whether funding mechanisms keep prices aligned, how liquidations work and what happens during volatile periods. At the same time, offshore volume does not answer every U.S. investor-protection question, especially around leverage, disclosures and market manipulation.
Portfolio margining is the second major issue
Traditional margin systems can treat positions separately even when they economically offset one another. Portfolio margining evaluates the risk of the portfolio as a whole, allowing a hedged position to require less collateral than two unrelated positions with the same gross notional value. Ondo argues that blockchain systems can calculate and manage those risks more dynamically.
The policy question is whether margin rules should be tied to old settlement assumptions or to measured economic exposure. More efficient margin can reduce unnecessary capital requirements and improve liquidity, but underestimating correlations can create serious systemic risk. Regulators therefore need robust stress testing and conservative assumptions, especially for leveraged products that can liquidate quickly.
On-chain market data could change regulatory reporting
Ondo’s third argument concerns market data. Traditional financial markets often reconstruct trading records from exchanges, brokers, clearinghouses and reporting facilities. Public blockchains create a native transaction history that can be observed and verified continuously. Ondo says regulators should consider whether that record can satisfy policy goals more directly.
On-chain data is transparent but not automatically complete. A blockchain address does not necessarily identify the legal person behind a trade, and activity can occur across multiple chains, centralized venues and off-chain systems. Regulators would still need identity, beneficial-ownership and surveillance tools. The advantage is that the base transaction record can be harder to alter after the fact.
Why SEC and CFTC coordination is unavoidable
Stock-linked perpetual futures sit at the intersection of securities and derivatives regulation. The SEC has authority over securities markets, while the CFTC oversees futures and many commodity derivatives. Security futures have historically involved joint oversight, which makes coordination essential if blockchain-based versions are brought onshore.
This same jurisdictional complexity is driving the CLARITY Act debate in Congress. A legal framework can define agency boundaries, but innovative products will still require practical coordination. Ondo’s letters effectively argue that agencies can begin solving specific product questions under existing authority even before Congress completes a comprehensive market-structure law.
Tokenization is moving from theory to regulated infrastructure
Ondo is not only lobbying for future products. It has spent 2026 building regulated tokenized-securities infrastructure in the United States. In July, the company announced tokenized versions of U.S.-listed securities within existing market structures and expanded the capabilities of Oasis Pro Markets, its SEC-registered broker-dealer subsidiary.
That matters because tokenization can mean several different things. Some tokens merely track the price of a stock without giving the holder direct shareholder rights. Others represent securities held in custody and are designed to preserve economic and governance rights. Regulators care deeply about that difference because the legal status of the token depends on what the holder actually owns.
What this could mean for U.S. investors
If regulators accept more blockchain-native market infrastructure, investors could eventually see longer trading hours, faster settlement, programmable collateral and easier movement of securities across approved platforms. Perpetual futures could offer continuous leveraged exposure without contract rollovers. Those features can reduce friction, but they can also encourage higher-frequency speculation and leverage.
Retail access would still depend on regulatory approvals, platform rules and suitability requirements. An offshore product being technically possible does not mean it will become broadly available to U.S. customers. Investors should distinguish Ondo’s policy proposals from products that have actually received authorization for a specific U.S. market.
Why the September filings matter beyond Ondo
Other traditional exchanges, banks and crypto companies are also exploring tokenized securities and 24-hour trading. The London Stock Exchange, for example, is developing tokenized equity infrastructure for future use. That global competition creates pressure on U.S. regulators to decide whether blockchain trading should be accommodated domestically or allowed to develop primarily offshore.
Ondo’s argument is likely to resonate with firms that want to modernize market plumbing without waiting years for entirely new statutes. Critics will ask whether existing rules truly cover the operational and systemic risks of always-on leveraged markets. The outcome will help determine whether U.S. tokenization remains a specialized pilot market or becomes part of mainstream capital-market infrastructure.
What happens next
The SEC and CFTC can respond through rulemaking, interpretations, exemptions, pilot programs or enforcement policy. Ondo’s letters do not compel the agencies to adopt its proposals, and there is no guarantee that stock perpetuals will be approved for U.S. retail trading. The filings are advocacy documents designed to influence how regulators interpret existing frameworks.
The near-term significance is that the debate has moved from whether tokenized markets are possible to how they should be regulated. Ondo is asking agencies to treat blockchain as infrastructure capable of meeting established policy goals in new ways. Whether regulators agree will be a key test of how quickly U.S. markets move toward on-chain settlement and continuous trading.
Why continuous markets create a harder risk problem
Always-on markets can reduce the artificial boundaries created by exchange hours, but they also remove pauses that give clearing systems and human risk teams time to reconcile positions. A perpetual contract linked to a U.S. stock could continue moving while the underlying cash market is closed, leaving traders dependent on thinner reference markets and alternative price signals.
That does not make 24/7 derivatives inherently unsafe, but it means regulators need rules for price sources, circuit breakers, liquidation engines and extreme gaps between the derivative and the underlying security. Ondo’s filings are therefore part of a larger debate about whether modern market infrastructure should simply stay open longer or whether round-the-clock trading requires a new generation of safeguards.
