Key Notes
- Hyperliquid Labs founder Jeff Yan says US oversight should focus on market operators that exercise control, rather than the underlying blockchain.
- HIP-3 deployers set contract specifications, oracle prices and leverage limits while using shared HyperCore infrastructure.
- The proposal does not announce US trading approval, and the CFTC’s separate crypto rulemaking remains an unfinished process.
Jeff Yan, a founder of Hyperliquid Labs, has outlined a path for US oversight of markets built on the Hyperliquid blockchain: regulate the firms that deploy and control those markets, while treating the underlying network as financial infrastructure.
Speaking on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, published October 15, Yan backed a model in which regulated operators use a shared blockchain to run trading services. His comments describe a proposed approach to oversight, rather than an announced US approval or a change to customer access.
The distinction matters as onchain trading expands beyond cryptocurrency prices into contracts referencing stocks, commodities and other assets. Hyperliquid Labs develops software for the network; the blockchain, the developers and the businesses operating individual markets have different roles.
Regulation Where Operators Exercise Control
Asked whether market deployers could be regulated instead of the protocol, Yan said that was a natural way to organize the system. He compared the network with internet protocols used to build financial services, arguing that oversight should follow the parties making decisions about specific markets.
“The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls,” he said. In his account, deployers exercise those controls, while the protocol supplies networking and liquidity infrastructure.
Yan also argued that a registered entity could retain permissions over the markets it launches while benefiting from a distributed network of validators. Those validators maintain agreement on balances and transactions, providing the technical foundation on which a trading business operates.
Running an exchange continuously involves more than keeping an order book online. Yan pointed to matching, clearing and the reliability of supporting systems as important considerations. He presented distributed infrastructure as a way to strengthen that foundation, rather than as a substitute for an operator’s responsibilities.
What a Hyperliquid Market Deployer Actually Does
The division has a concrete counterpart in Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 documentation. The framework lets builders deploy perpetual-futures markets using HyperCore’s order books and margining infrastructure.
A deployer defines the contract and its oracle, the mechanism supplying reference prices. It also operates the market, including setting oracle prices and leverage limits, and can settle the market when necessary. These are substantive decisions about the product traders use.
The current mainnet requirement is to stake 500,000 HYPE, maintained for at least 183 days after deployment. The documentation describes a technical participation requirement and potential penalties for harmful market operation; it does not confer a financial license.
That separation helps explain Yan’s argument: a common network can support different operators with their own market settings. Whether a particular arrangement satisfies US law remains a regulatory question, not something settled by the protocol’s design.
An Infrastructure Pitch to Financial Institutions
Yan pushed back on the suggestion that established financial firms must be displaced for Hyperliquid to succeed. He said those institutions already have customer relationships, trusted brands and useful services, and could adopt new technology to improve their offerings.
He compared that opportunity with companies adopting Amazon Web Services instead of maintaining every part of their own computing infrastructure. The ambition is to supply shared technology that financial businesses can use, with the network supporting their products rather than replacing every customer-facing institution.
The discussion follows CoinScreamer’s coverage of Hyperliquid’s trading revenue and HYPE buybacks. That earlier report examined the economics of a growing onchain derivatives ecosystem; the new interview addresses how regulated businesses might participate in such infrastructure.
US Access Still Depends on Regulatory Decisions
Yan did not announce a date for unrestricted US access. When the hosts raised the use of virtual private networks by Americans, he said doing so breaches the service’s terms. His proposal therefore should not be read as permission for US customers to bypass existing restrictions.
He described the remaining challenge as establishing how the technology fits the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s core principles. Regulators have responsibilities to protect an existing financial system, he said, even as they consider newer ways to operate markets.
Separately, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has outlined the agency’s CTX and CAM initiative. It seeks a federal framework for eligible crypto trading platforms, including margined, leveraged or financed retail trading.
As our rulemaking coverage explains, that process is a consultation on potential rules. It has not created an automatic license for Hyperliquid market deployers. Selig also acknowledged that requiring ordinary spot crypto platforms to register would need congressional authority.
A Different Question From Labs’ Singapore Base
The interview also follows scrutiny of Singapore oversight. That story concerned Hyperliquid Labs’ reported location and the treatment of activities associated with the decentralized network. The location of a software company should not be treated as the headquarters or incorporation of a permissionless blockchain.
The distinction carries into the US debate: oversight of a developer, a market operator and an underlying protocol cannot simply be assumed to be identical. Yan’s preferred model puts the focus on operators’ control. The unresolved issue is how regulators will apply their requirements to the specific services and structures built on the network.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
