Perpetual futures are gaining traction beyond cryptocurrency markets, with institutional interest growing in their potential applications across equities, energy and emerging asset classes, according to a new report from Crisil Coalition Greenwich.

The report, Perpetual Futures: The Next Wave, found that 40% of respondents expect the products to have a positive long-term impact on U.S. futures markets, compared with approximately 20% who anticipate a negative impact. However, regulatory uncertainty remains the biggest obstacle to broader adoption, particularly the unresolved question of whether perpetual futures should be classified as futures or swaps.

David Easthope, Head of FinTech at Coalition Greenwich, said the products could increase market participation, improve access to emerging asset classes and create new trading opportunities by eliminating the need to roll traditional futures contracts. According to the findings, more than half of respondents identified equities, including indices and single stocks, as the asset class with the greatest potential for perpetual futures adoption over the next two to three years. In an interview with Traders Magazine, Easthope discussed the drivers of institutional interest, regulatory challenges, potential liquidity fragmentation and how traditional futures exchanges may respond to the emerging market.

What is driving institutional interest in perpetual futures?

The wave of perpetual futures has been building and is now crashing on our shores. 40% of our respondents see the long-term impact of perps as positive for futures markets, with only about 20% decidedly negative. Positive impacts noted were an increase in overall market participation, improved access to emerging asset classes (e.g., crypto, compute), the potential for new trading strategies, and a more efficient way to gain exposure (via removal of the roll process and/or inherent leverage).

While still primarily trading on offshore venues, perpetual futures or “perps” have captivated U.S. derivatives traders and market structure experts in 2026. Perps are one of the most consequential exports of crypto market structure. The perp has given crypto traders a more capital-efficient way to gain market exposure (and a method of trading without having to hold the underlying, sometimes an onerous issue with crypto).

Outside of the United States, perps are actively trading on a variety of DeFi and TradFi platforms such as Hyperliquid. In the U.S., Kalshi offers perps trading in Bitcoin, gold, silver, and most recently, equities via its recently approved U.S. Large Cap Index future. Perps on U.S. Treasuries are still under review with the CFTC.

Outside of crypto, one of the primary rationales for perps versus traditional futures contracts is to eliminate the roll.

How is regulatory uncertainty affecting adoption in the U.S.?

Our study participants identified regulatory uncertainty as the greatest roadblock to the growth of perps trading in the U.S. (swaps vs. futures debate). As such, a resolution to this debate is paramount so everyone understands the rules of the road. Regardless of the final decision, however, we believe the use cases for perps remain intact.

Which asset classes offer the greatest growth potential beyond crypto?

While the majority of perps volume around the world today is focused on crypto, expansion into equities, energy and compute is coming. In fact, over half of our respondents believe equities (indices and single stocks) will see the biggest applications for perps over the next two to three years, while compute (an emerging part of the AI economy) is mentioned by a sizable group.

We believe compute, covered by both perps as well as traditional futures markets, could see the biggest acceleration in adoption as there is fresh appeal for this asset class as a commercial hedging product.

Could perpetual futures fragment liquidity in traditional futures markets?

While there is generally positive sentiment about these products, there are some concerns. One concern is indeed fragmentation.

Futures markets in the U.S., from agriculture to oil, are deep and liquid and have served traders and hedgers for decades. Product innovation has and will always be a way to challenge existing market structure (including exchanges) and certainly has the potential to improve market efficiency.

However, a growing list of contracts tracking the same or similar underlying assets in both on- and offshore markets could fragment liquidity and potentially cause concerns for commercial hedgers.

However, that concern does not appear to be pervasive across the respondents to our study and could depend on the actual asset class (i.e., equities, energy, metals, etc.). Moreover, we did not speak directly to corporates about this particular topic to get their opinion.

What is holding back broader institutional adoption?

Broader institutional demand depends on whether these products, so far successful offshore in crypto, can be tailored to institutional preferences and U.S. regulatory oversight. For instance, existing market structure will need to change to accommodate products that don’t roll and fund multiple times a day.

Bringing perps into institutional markets will also require the creation of new trade and post-trade workflows. Under current perps workflows, if a holder can’t post the needed margin, the position is automatically liquidated. This might work fine for retail but not for institutions or hedgers.

Not to mention, most institutional trade-processing systems are not built to handle derivatives that never expire. None of these things are insurmountable, but they are important.

How will traditional futures exchanges respond, and where is the market headed?

Retail-facing (for now) perps platforms see a genuine near-term structural opportunity to compete and innovate against the traditional futures industry in the U.S., including futures exchanges. A full-scale barring of perps in the U.S. is unlikely. Regulatory labels can also be debated.

At the same time, futures exchanges have an ability to adapt and respond. We believe it is likely that perps will be reformatted to emphasize the features that most futures market participants are seeking in a way that fits within the U.S. regulatory regime.

In other words, we believe the industry will focus less on what these products are called and more on how they are used and applied to existing, new and emerging sectors of the capital markets.