Exchanges Must Embrace Blockchain Infrastructure to Remain Competitive, Says Hyperliquid Policy Center CEO
Singapore – In a bold prediction delivered at the Digital Asset Summit 2026 Asia, Jake Chervinsky, CEO of the Hyperliquid Policy Center, stated that within the next decade, all exchanges will need to integrate blockchain infrastructure to stay competitive. This applies to both crypto-native firms like Coinbase and Kraken, as well as traditional giants such as CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).
Chervinsky articulated his vision clearly: Hyperliquid is not an exchange itself, but rather an infrastructure that exchanges can utilize. He drew an analogy between the Hyperliquid protocol and foundational blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. These public blockchains, he explained, do not require registration as exchanges because they serve as underlying technology, with compliant entities providing the actual trading interfaces.
“Hyperliquid is not looking to compete with Kalshi, Coinbase, Robinhood, or CME,” Chervinsky stated. “Hyperliquid sits one layer lower in the technology stack. It’s a technology that they can use to improve their products.” His overarching goal is for the entire financial system to upgrade its technology, adopting public blockchains as its fundamental infrastructure.
“If we are successful, in 10 years, every exchange you can think of, whether it’s crypto-native or traditional, will have to integrate this technology to be competitive,” he added.
Chervinsky’s remarks follow Kraken’s parent company, Payward, announcement in September that it would deploy a U.S. compliant perpetual market on Hyperliquid. In this setup, Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated exchange and clearinghouse acquired by Payward, is responsible for creating and clearing contracts, while NinjaTrader Clearing handles account custody.
This architecture is designed to circumvent the challenge of whether a public blockchain itself needs to be registered as an exchange. The compliance responsibilities are handled by regulated traditional financial entities at the upper layer, while the Hyperliquid chain’s infrastructure executes trades at the lower layer.
Chervinsky noted that U.S. regulators have already permitted registered exchanges to offer crypto perpetual contracts to domestic clients. In August 2026, President Trump publicly directed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to “bring Hyperliquid to U.S. shores in a compliant manner.” Prior to this, the CFTC had paved the way for Kalshi to offer regulated perpetual futures to U.S. customers.
However, regulators have yet to approve the underlying on-chain infrastructure itself. Chervinsky believes this step will occur “in the not-too-distant future.”
“There’s no question that regulators are working to bring on-chain markets into the U.S.,” he said. “I respect that they are approaching this in a systematic and thoughtful way. It’s not simple.”
He clearly outlined the benefits of bringing on-chain markets under regulatory purview: shared public ledgers and decentralization offer resilience, security, and transparency, while lower costs and higher speeds improve existing market systems.
Chervinsky also indicated that the next regulatory development will likely involve the expansion of perpetual contracts to other underlying assets. Oil and metals are already among the most active markets on Hyperliquid, with agricultural contracts also in development.
Chervinsky also commented on the lawsuit filed by CME Group in June. CME sued the CFTC, seeking to overturn the regulator’s prior decision to approve perpetual contracts as futures products, arguing they should be classified as swaps.
“If you choose not to compete, you can’t complain about the competition you decided not to enter,” Chervinsky remarked. He pointed out that perpetual contracts are not cannibalizing the volume of CME’s existing dated futures; rather, they represent a new, independent market that exchanges can choose to participate in or not.
“I think this is purely a tactic by CME to slow things down because they are not yet ready to capitalize on this development themselves. It’s a delay tactic,” he stated.
He also referenced CME’s recent decision to withdraw its 24/7 energy futures plan, citing “human resources issues” as the official reason. Chervinsky, however, was unconvinced. “I don’t think it’s a human resources issue. I think CME was too aggressive and didn’t understand the actual needs of the energy industry for 24/7 trading.”
