The race to bring decentralized crypto trading into the United States may be entering a new phase, and Hyperliquid is positioning itself at the centre of it.

On August 19, Donald Trump publicly revealed at the White House that Michael Selig, chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a compliant and legal manner.

The comment was significant. Until then, Hyperliquid’s potential U.S. expansion had largely been a subject of market speculation. Trump’s remarks brought the possibility into the open, although the regulatory pathway remained uncertain.

Now, Kraken’s parent company, Payward, appears to be taking the next step.

On September 16, Payward announced plans to leverage Hyperliquid’s on-chain infrastructure to offer perpetual futures trading to U.S. customers. Then, on October 26, Hyperliquid disclosed that Payward intended to become the first CFTC-regulated deployer of its HIP-3* markets.

The developments could mark an important moment for decentralized finance. Rather than building an entirely separate trading infrastructure, a regulated financial institution could use an existing decentralized trading network while maintaining the necessary regulatory controls around customer access and market operations.

From political signals to a proposed institutional partnership and a technical mechanism for restricting market access, Hyperliquid’s route into the U.S. is beginning to take shape.

But how exactly would it work?

How Kraken’s parent plans to bring Hyperliquid to U.S. traders

The proposed arrangement separates two things that are often handled together in traditional exchanges: customer account management and the actual execution of trades.

Under the announced plan, Payward would use different regulated entities within its corporate group to manage the U.S. trading operation.

Three entities have specific responsibilities:

  • Bitnomial Exchange, LLC: A CFTC-registered designated contract market (DCM) responsible for creating, owning and managing the relevant markets.
  • Bitnomial Clearinghouse, LLC: A CFTC-registered derivatives clearing organization responsible for clearing and settling contracts.
  • NinjaTrader Clearing, LLC: A registered futures commission merchant (FCM) that would carry customer accounts.

For U.S. customers, accessing these markets would involve completing the required account-opening and compliance reviews. Customers would also need to be allowlisted by both NinjaTrader and Bitnomial before they could participate.

Here is where the arrangement becomes interesting.

Although regulated entities would handle customer accounts, market deployment and clearing responsibilities, the actual trading would take place on Hyperliquid.

Order matching and trade records would be handled through Hyperliquid’s on-chain order book.

In other words, the arrangement combines regulated financial institutions with decentralized trading infrastructure.

This does not mean U.S. customers would suddenly gain access to every perpetual futures market on Hyperliquid. Instead, licensed institutions would deploy independently operated, access-restricted markets using Hyperliquid’s infrastructure.

That distinction is important. The objective is to create a regulated route into specific markets without imposing the same restrictions on every market operating across the network.

HIP-3: The technology making this possible

To understand why the proposed partnership matters, it helps to look at Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework.

HIP-3 allows third parties to deploy and operate their own perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid’s HyperCore infrastructure.

Think of it as allowing external operators to build and manage individual trading markets on top of an existing decentralized exchange infrastructure.

These deployers can define their own contract specifications, configure price oracles, establish leverage limits and take responsibility for operating their markets.

Each market has its own order book, margin arrangements and trading parameters. They do not all operate through one shared order book.

This flexibility is particularly relevant for institutions that want to offer specialised trading products while retaining control over how those products operate.

However, the more interesting development is HIP-3*.

The framework introduces an optional feature that allows market deployers to restrict access through an on-chain allowlist.

Essentially, only approved wallet addresses can participate in a particular market.

For example, an institution operating under U.S. regulatory requirements could restrict access to its market to customers who have completed the necessary eligibility and compliance checks.

Those restrictions would apply to that specific market rather than automatically extending across the entire Hyperliquid ecosystem.

The initial version of this feature is already live on testnet, although its specifications may still change. Mainnet support will require a future network upgrade, and existing HIP-3 markets will not automatically be affected.

This is the technical component that could make the proposed institutional arrangement possible.

Instead of forcing an entire decentralized exchange to operate under one set of access restrictions, individual market operators can introduce controls tailored to their regulatory and business requirements.

An allowlist is not a regulatory licence

There is an important distinction between restricting access to a market and making that market legally compliant.

An on-chain allowlist can determine which wallets are permitted to trade, but it cannot independently fulfil all the obligations associated with operating a regulated derivatives business.

Customer identity verification, account management, contractual arrangements, risk controls, clearing and applicable regulatory responsibilities must still be handled by the relevant institutions.

Adding a wallet address to an allowlist does not automatically establish that its owner has passed every required compliance review.

Similarly, introducing an access-control feature does not mean regulators have approved the market itself.

This is why Payward’s proposed role is particularly important. Its regulated entities would be responsible for the relevant institutional and customer-facing obligations, while Hyperliquid provides the underlying trading infrastructure.

There are still important milestones ahead.

HIP-3* is currently being tested on testnet, with mainnet implementation dependent on a future network upgrade. The proposed Payward market has also not yet received regulatory approval.

The technical pathway is emerging, but the regulatory green light and actual market launch are still outstanding.

For now, U.S. customers cannot trade the specific Hyperliquid perpetual futures market that Payward intends to deploy through this arrangement.

What could this mean for Hyperliquid?

For Hyperliquid, the proposed partnership could represent an important expansion beyond its existing crypto-native user base.

The platform has built its reputation around on-chain trading infrastructure, particularly perpetual futures. Working with a regulated financial institution could open another distribution channel, allowing its technology to support markets designed for customers operating within traditional regulatory frameworks.

It also offers a potential way to attract institutional participants that may have been reluctant to interact directly with unrestricted decentralized trading environments.

More importantly, the arrangement could demonstrate that decentralized infrastructure does not necessarily have to operate independently of traditional financial institutions.

Instead, regulated companies could use blockchain-based trading systems while retaining responsibility for customer access, compliance and other regulated activities.

However, the commercial benefits remain to be seen.

The partnership will need to demonstrate that institutional participation can translate into meaningful trading activity, deeper liquidity and sustained demand.

Can this become a bigger opportunity for Kraken’s parent?

For Payward, the opportunity is equally interesting.

Rather than relying entirely on its own trading infrastructure, the company could use Hyperliquid’s existing on-chain order book to support new perpetual futures markets.

This could offer access to a different trading environment while allowing its regulated subsidiaries to maintain control over the relevant customer and market responsibilities.

It also creates an interesting model for how traditional financial institutions might approach decentralized finance.

Instead of competing with every decentralized protocol by building everything from scratch, institutions could potentially integrate existing blockchain infrastructure into their own regulated product offerings.

But there are practical questions that remain unanswered.

The initial contracts to be offered have not been fully disclosed. Specific leverage limits, trading conditions and the overall customer experience will also influence whether U.S. traders find the products attractive.

Market depth, funding arrangements, clearing processes and the ease of moving funds into and out of the trading environment will matter just as much as access to the underlying technology.

Ultimately, a technically successful integration does not guarantee a commercially successful trading product.

The bigger picture: DeFi meets regulated finance

The proposed Hyperliquid and Payward partnership highlights a broader shift taking place across the crypto industry.

For years, decentralized exchanges and traditional financial institutions have largely operated in separate environments. DeFi platforms prioritised open access and on-chain execution, while regulated institutions focused on customer verification, licensing, risk management and compliance.

The challenge has been finding a way to combine these models without compromising the requirements of either.

HIP-3* introduces one possible approach: allowing individual market operators to control access to their markets while using shared decentralized infrastructure.

If the Payward arrangement receives regulatory approval and successfully launches, it could provide a practical example of how regulated institutions can bring blockchain-based trading infrastructure into traditional financial markets.

It could also create a model that other institutions explore when building regulated digital-asset products.

But the distinction between technical capability and regulatory acceptance remains crucial.

Hyperliquid may have found a potential bridge between decentralized trading and regulated U.S. markets, but Payward still has to prove that the bridge can carry real customers and trading volume.

The next milestones will be the HIP-3* mainnet upgrade, regulatory approval, the actual deployment of Payward’s markets and, eventually, evidence of sustained trading activity.

The real story is no longer just whether Hyperliquid can enter the U.S. It is whether decentralized trading infrastructure can become part of the regulated financial system without losing the advantages that made it attractive in the first place.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Derivatives trading involves significant risk; invest with caution.