Hyperliquid Pushes for MiFID II Classification of Perpetuals The Hyperliquid Policy Center (@HyperliquidX), a Washington-based group funded with 1 million HYPE tokens from the Hyperliquid Fou
The Hyperliquid Policy Center (@HyperliquidX), a Washington-based group funded with 1 million HYPE tokens from the Hyperliquid Foundation, has submitted a formal response to the European Commission's review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). The filing marks the organization's first submission outside the United States and puts forward a clear position: crypto perpetual futures belong under MiFID II, not MiCA.
The group argues that instrument classification should follow the economic features of a product rather than the technology used to record it, and that regulation should be calibrated to the actual functions and risks a product presents. In practice, that means onchain perpetual futures should be treated as derivatives under the EU's existing MiFID II framework, with the group asking the Commission to confirm through existing ESMA guidance that perpetual futures fall under MiFID II regardless of how they are recorded. It says this would require no new legislation.
The center also pushed back on any move to classify perpetual futures alongside contracts for difference (CFDs). It urged the EU to refrain from applying CFD regulations to perpetual futures, emphasizing that the two instruments operate under fundamentally different mechanisms, as perps execute through transparent order books rather than bilateral counterparty arrangements.
On transparency, HPC asked the Commission to require trading venues to publish funding methodologies, maintenance margins and liquidation thresholds in advance. It also noted that public blockchain features, including transparency, immutable records and verifiable settlement, directly support regulatory objectives and facilitate compliance for regulated intermediaries.
Circle, the issuer of $USDC, filed a separate submission during the same consultation window, raising concerns about MiCA's limited reach across global stablecoin markets. Roughly 30 e-money tokens are now authorized under MiCA, but of the top 25 stablecoins globally by market capitalization, only three are currently MiCA-regulated: USDC, USDG and EURC.
Circle also targeted MiCA's reserve rules directly. MiCA's bank deposit floor requires e-money token issuers to keep at least 30% of their reserves in commercial bank deposits, rising to 60% if the European Banking Authority designates the token as significant. Circle argues this structure increases exposure to banking sector risk, a concern the company knows well: USDC briefly lost its $1 peg in March 2023 after the company disclosed $3.3 billion of its roughly $40 billion in reserves was sitting at Silicon Valley Bank when it failed.
Circle wants the EU to preserve multi-issuance and create an equivalence regime for foreign-regulated stablecoins, moves it says would bring more of the global stablecoin market within a regulated perimeter without requiring issuers to restructure entirely around European licensing. The European Central Bank has expressed support for reducing the minimum bank deposit threshold for stablecoin providers, giving Circle at least partial backing from within EU institutions.
The European Commission's MiCA review consultation closed on September 30, after the Commission extended its deadline from August 31. Both submissions form part of a broader industry push to reshape how the EU's landmark crypto rulebook evolves in its next phase.
Sources:The Block: Hyperliquid Policy Center, Circle press EU on perps and stablecoin reserves in MiCA reviewCoinMarketCap: Hyperliquid Policy Group Urges EU To Classify Perpetuals Under MiFIDCoinGape: Circle Urges EU to Change MiCA Rules, Says Only 3 of Top 30 Stablecoins Comply
