Kalshi, a US prediction market platform, announced on June 3 that it has officially launched BTCPERP, “the first compliant Bitcoin perpetual contract in the US,” after the CFTC issued a final approval order on May 29. The contract offers a maximum leverage of 6.3x, far below the level of typical offshore platforms, and agricultural products are clearly excluded from the product lineup.
Contract specifications confirmed for BTCPERP and CFTC approval terms
According to Kalshi’s official announcement and the CFTC approval order (May 29, 2026), the confirmed specifications for BTCPERP are as follows: the contract tracks the spot price of Bitcoin, has no expiration date (as long as margin is sufficient, positions can be held indefinitely); the funding rate is settled every 8 hours—if the contract price is higher than spot, long positions pay fees to short positions, and vice versa; maximum leverage is 6.3x; the system includes a forced liquidation mechanism to prevent account balances from turning negative.
Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour, in an interview with CNBC, said that perpetual contracts are “the purest form of trading,” symbolizing the company’s shift into a full-service derivatives exchange. He also said that regulated perpetual contracts will improve capital allocation and risk management for US companies.
Kalshi’s legal pressure: Minnesota state legislation and House investigation
After completing its latest funding round, Kalshi’s valuation reached $22 billion, but it faces dual legal pressure at the same time. Recent legislation in the US state of Minnesota classifies prediction markets operating in the state as a felony; on May 28, 2026, Kalshi sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other state government officials, arguing that federal law should take precedence over state law and asking the court to block the bill from being enforced. The US Department of Justice and the CFTC have also sued the state to defend the exclusive regulatory authority of federal agencies.
On the other hand, James Comer, Chairman of the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, recently announced that he will launch a large-scale investigation into Kalshi and Polymarket, focusing on KYC compliance procedures, identity verification systems, monitoring of abnormal trading, and measures to prevent overseas users from circumventing US regulatory requirements through geographic restrictions.
FAQ
What is the fundamental difference between perpetual contracts and traditional futures contracts, and why are they specifically regulated by the CFTC?
Traditional futures contracts have expiration dates; they must be settled or rolled over at expiration. Perpetual contracts have no expiration date—positions can be held indefinitely as long as margin remains sufficient. The funding rate mechanism keeps the contract anchored to the spot price. Because perpetual contracts combine leverage with unlimited holding periods, they carry higher systemic risk. The CFTC previously set strict approval procedures for domestic compliance pathways for such products, and Kalshi’s approval is the first case to pass the approval process.
How big is the gap between the 6.3x maximum leverage and offshore platforms?
According to Kalshi’s official announcement, the 6.3x maximum leverage is the cap under CFTC compliance requirements—“far below the level of typical offshore platforms.” Major offshore platforms such as Binance typically offer Bitcoin perpetual contracts with up to 125x leverage. The 6.3x limit reflects the CFTC’s requirements to control systemic risk, making it suitable for institutional investors seeking a compliant route but willing to accept lower leverage.
How does Minnesota’s legislation pose a threat to Kalshi’s operations nationwide?
Minnesota’s legislation classifies prediction markets operating within the state as a felony. If it remains in effect, Kalshi will be unable to serve users in Minnesota. The core argument of Kalshi’s lawsuit is that federal law (the CFTC regulatory framework) takes precedence over state law. The US Department of Justice and the CFTC have filed supporting positions. The outcome of the case will affect other states’ decisions on whether to follow similar legislation.
