Kraken parent Payward plans regulated Hyperliquid markets through Bitnomial

A regulated route into Hyperliables

Payward said in its announcement that Bitnomial, its CFTC-regulated designated contract market and derivatives clearing organization, would deploy, own, administer, clear and settle the proposed HIP-3 markets. NinjaTrader Clearing, Payward’s CFTC-registered futures commission merchant, would carry client accounts.

Trading would be restricted to accounts that appear on allowlists maintained by both entities, according to Payward. The company said the proposed arrangement is designed to bring onchain perpetual futures to US clients while preserving the controls required for regulated market access.

The structure separates several functions that are often combined on crypto trading platforms. Hyperliquid would provide the underlying infrastructure, Bitnomial would operate the markets and manage clearing and settlement, and NinjaTrader Clearing would handle client accounts. The proposed division could allow Payward to use Hyperliquid’s technology without positioning the decentralized protocol itself as the regulated broker, exchange or clearing intermediary.

That distinction is central to the proposal. A conventional US derivatives product requires regulated entities to oversee market operations, customer relationships, clearing and settlement. The Payward structure would place those responsibilities with entities that already occupy relevant roles in the US derivatives system, while using Hyperliquid for the trading infrastructure.

What HIP-3 changes

The Block reported on October 26 that Hyperliquid plans to make Payward its first CFTC-regulated HIP-3 deployer. The publication said HIP-3 permissioning is available on testnet, but the proposed Payward deployment is not yet live on mainnet.

HIP-3 is intended to allow deployers to create permissioned markets with onchain allowlists. Instead of making a market available to every user of the protocol, a deployer can restrict participation to approved accounts. For a regulated operator, that feature could provide a technical mechanism for limiting access to customers who have completed the operator’s onboarding and compliance processes.

The allowlist model could also clarify where responsibility sits. Payward and its regulated subsidiaries would decide which accounts can trade, while Hyperliquid would provide the software and network environment in which the market operates. Hyperliquid has described itself as a neutral infrastructure layer and has said deployers retain control and responsibility for their own markets.

That arrangement does not, by itself, resolve the legal questions. An access list may restrict participation, but it does not necessarily establish how customer identification, suitability reviews, sanctions screening, transaction monitoring or other compliance functions would operate. Payward’s announcement does not publish a detailed description of how those controls would be implemented onchain or offchain.

It is also not clear from the announced structure whether users would interact directly with Hyperliquid, with a Payward interface, or through another account and brokerage system. That question matters because the customer experience could determine whether the product functions as a genuinely onchain derivatives market or as a regulated brokerage product that uses onchain settlement or execution infrastructure behind the scenes.

Regulatory approval remains the key condition

Payward said the proposed trading arrangement remains subject to regulatory approval. The company’s announcement therefore describes an intended deployment rather than an operating product. No mainnet market, customer access process or final compliance framework has been announced in the materials reviewed for this report.

The proposal follows Payward’s earlier exploration of a structure for offering Hyperliquid-linked perpetual futures to US traders through Bitnomial. The company now identifies Bitnomial as the entity that would deploy, own, administer, clear and settle the HIP-3 markets, with NinjaTrader Clearing responsible for carrying customer accounts.

That allocation could reduce ambiguity over which firms would be accountable for customers and market operations. It also creates more points at which regulators would need to assess the arrangement. The relevant questions include how orders are handled, how collateral is held, how positions are recorded, how liquidations are conducted and how disputes are resolved.

A report by The Block in August quoted former SEC senior counsel Ashley Ebersole as saying the proposed structure could require involvement from both the SEC and the CFTC. Ebersole also said the regulatory process could take at least 10 to 12 months. Those comments were made about the proposed US entry structure and represent a critical assessment, not a regulatory determination.

The need for approval illustrates the limits of describing the arrangement as merely a technical deployment. Once US clients, derivatives contracts and regulated intermediaries are involved, the product must be evaluated through the rules governing market operators, clearing firms, futures commission merchants and customer protection.

Will the product remain meaningfully onchain?

The critical questions extend beyond formal approval. CoinMarketCap Academy’s Ayesha Aziz questioned whether a brokerage account combined with two separate allowlists would preserve a meaningfully onchain trading experience. Aziz noted that important details about collateral, fees, leverage and position visibility had not been published.

Those details will shape the practical significance of the deployment. If customers hold collateral and manage positions through conventional brokerage accounts, while the protocol handles only selected elements of trading, the product may resemble a regulated wrapper around decentralized infrastructure. If customers can independently verify positions, collateral and market activity onchain while regulated firms control access and customer protection, it could offer a more distinctive model.

The sources reviewed for this story contain critical questions but no public opposing statement from a regulator or competing market operator. That means the proposal should be treated as an untested framework, not as evidence that permissioned decentralized derivatives markets are already accepted by US authorities.

The broader issue is whether protocol infrastructure can remain neutral while regulated entities assume responsibility for particular markets. Payward’s plan offers a concrete test of that separation. Its success will depend not only on whether Bitnomial and NinjaTrader Clearing receive approval, but also on whether the final product makes the division of duties clear to customers, regulators and other market participants.