Kalshi Plans 24/7 Tesla and Nvidia Perpetual Futures

Kalshi plans to seek U.S. regulatory approval for roughly 60 perpetual futures tied to individual stocks and exchange-traded funds, including Tesla, Apple and Nvidia, according to a Sept. 11 CoinDesk report. The reported contracts could trade around the clock. CoinDesk said the proposal, if approved, would produce the first regulated U.S. perpetual futures on individual stocks.

The plan is still a plan, rather than an announced live market. CoinDesk attributed the account to a Wall Street Journal report and did not publish a Kalshi product filing, a contract rulebook, a listing date, or the complete list of proposed underlyings. That leaves the reported number, the named companies and ETFs, and the intended 24-hour schedule as the available description of the proposal, not terms that traders can yet use.

Perpetual futures, often shortened to perps, are derivatives without a set expiration date. In CoinDesk's description, traders take positions on whether the referenced asset will rise or fall, often using borrowed funds, while recurring payments between traders are intended to keep the contract price near the price of the asset it references. The article identifies the product as a familiar part of crypto trading and says it would be brought into an equity-linked setting under Kalshi's reported plan.

That setting creates a timing difference. A Tesla or Nvidia perpetual contract operating all day, every day could trade while Nasdaq-listed shares are closed overnight, on weekends, or during a market halt. CoinDesk described that as a market in which a perp price could move before the underlying share market reopens. It did not report a proposed price-source methodology, a funding-payment schedule, a position-exposure limit, a settlement rule, or the operating procedures Kalshi would use when the stock market is closed.

Kalshi logo via Wikimedia Commons.

The reported proposal is not an approval

The public account does not say that Kalshi has already submitted the products to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that the CFTC has accepted a submission, or that the Securities and Exchange Commission has signed off on the products. It says Kalshi plans to seek approval. The distinction determines what can be reported at this stage: the identified development is a proposed application for a group of equity-linked perpetual futures, not regulatory permission to trade Tesla, Nvidia, Apple, or any other listed stock through a perpetual contract.

CoinDesk reported that Kalshi received CFTC approval in May for a bitcoin perpetual contract, and that the regulator classified that product as a futures contract. The publication also reported that the CFTC cautioned that the structure might not work for every asset class and that perpetuals referencing other assets should receive individual review. That reported bitcoin decision is context for Kalshi's stated direction, not evidence that an equity-linked contract would receive the same result.

The distinction is particularly narrow because a bitcoin perpetual and a contract tied to a publicly traded U.S. company are not described in CoinDesk's report as the same regulatory case. The report frames the unanswered question directly: whether a perpetual contract linked to a stock belongs within CFTC futures oversight or under the SEC's supervision of the underlying shares. Neither the proposed product list nor the reported bitcoin precedent resolves that jurisdictional issue.

The report also does not establish that all 60 proposed instruments would have identical terms. A contract tied to an individual stock and one tied to an ETF may each raise the same broad question about a perpetual derivative linked to a securities market, while still requiring a defined reference price, trading rules, risk controls, and settlement terms. None of those contract-level details appears in the cited report. It would be premature to supply them by assuming that a crypto perpetual's mechanics will be copied into an equity product unchanged.

CFTC actions show a product-by-product review

The CFTC has separately been examining 24/7 futures trading and perpetual contracts, although its published proceedings cited here concern energy commodities rather than stock-linked perps. On July 9, the agency stayed a self-certified CME proposal that would have initiated 24/7 trading in crude-oil futures. The CFTC said it was seeking public comment on whether extending standard futures to a 24/7 schedule was consistent with the Commodity Exchange Act and the agency's statutory Core Principles.

That action is not a ruling on Kalshi's reported products. It nevertheless records the CFTC's stated view that continuous trading cannot be assumed to raise the same issues across every asset class. In the crude-oil release, Chairman Michael S. Selig said the agency was examining whether 24/7 futures trading across various asset classes was consistent with the Core Principles and that the CFTC did not take a one-size-fits-all approach. The release concerned a fixed-expiration energy future, not a perpetual future tied to an equity.

The CFTC release also describes two routes through which an exchange may list a contract: self-certification under Commission Regulation 40.2 or Commission review and approval under Regulation 40.3. CME made separate filings under both provisions for its crude-oil proposal, according to the agency. The CFTC's account of those filings does not identify the route Kalshi would use for a prospective equity-linked perpetual, and it should not be read as an announcement that Kalshi has made either kind of filing.

Later that month, the CFTC extended the comment deadline for an inquiry on extending standard futures to 24/7 trading and on perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities. The agency said the request addressed, first, fixed-expiration futures moved to a continuous schedule with material changes to delivery or settlement terms and, second, perpetuals tied to that energy-commodity category. The extension moved the deadline to Aug. 26 after the CFTC said commenters had requested more time and the agency had added questions.

Those official materials provide a useful limit on broad conclusions from the Kalshi report. They show that the CFTC is actively considering continuous schedules and perpetual-contract structures in an energy context, and that it can stay a self-certified contract while it evaluates legal and regulatory questions. They do not announce a CFTC framework for single-stock perps, approve a Tesla or Nvidia contract, or classify an equity-linked perpetual as a futures product.

The SEC-CFTC boundary is part of the dispute

Citadel Securities has argued that equity-linked perpetuals should remain under SEC oversight, CoinDesk reported. In a letter to the SEC and CFTC, the trading firm warned that assigning such products elsewhere could create a "parallel shadow market" disconnected from surveillance across U.S. stocks and options. That is Citadel's position, as reported by CoinDesk, rather than a conclusion announced by either agency.

The concern described in the report turns on the relationship between an all-hours derivative market and a stock market that has defined trading hours and can halt trading. CoinDesk used undisclosed earnings information as an example: a person with material nonpublic information could theoretically trade a perpetual contract while the underlying stock market is closed. The report presents that as a risk scenario, not an allegation that anyone has traded a Kalshi equity perpetual with inside information or that a proposed contract has already been used improperly.

CoinDesk also reported Citadel's concern about a company releasing material news during a trading halt while a perpetual contract remains open. Whether a specific contract would continue trading, pause, use a different reference price, or apply some other rule in that circumstance depends on product terms that the report does not provide. The scenario explains why trading-hour coordination and halt procedures are part of the regulatory debate; it does not establish the policy Kalshi would adopt.

Citadel's argument, as reported, is that SEC oversight already connects surveillance of trading across stocks, options, and related products. The company pointed to rules involving trading halts, order handling and market access that may not carry over automatically if a stock-linked perpetual were regulated under a different framework. That statement does not settle whether the legal classification of a particular contract lies with the SEC, the CFTC, or requires coordination between the agencies. It describes a market participant's case for keeping equity-linked perps within the SEC's existing system.

The CFTC's crude-oil releases and Citadel's letter address different products and questions. The CFTC's official releases ask how 24/7 futures and energy perpetuals fit its statutory and regulatory requirements. Citadel's reported letter focuses on the supervision of products tied to U.S. public companies. Taken together, they show that continuous trading is only one part of the prospective Kalshi products; the identity of the reference asset and the market-surveillance arrangement are separate issues.

A price after the stock market closes

A 24/7 perpetual contract would not make the underlying share itself trade continuously. CoinDesk's report instead describes a derivative whose price could continue changing while Tesla, Nvidia, or another listed stock is unavailable for trading on its primary market. The report does not say that an overnight perp price would become the official market price of the share, replace the closing price established on the stock exchange, or control the opening price when the cash market resumes.

That distinction affects the practical meaning of a quoted contract price. During regular trading, a perpetual's contract price would have a live public-stock market to reference. When that cash market is shut, the relationship between the perp and its stated reference asset would depend on the contract's specified price source and funding mechanism. CoinDesk explains the general role of recurring payments in keeping perpetuals close to the asset they track, but it does not disclose how that process would be calculated for Kalshi's proposed equity contracts during a closure.

No published detail in the report establishes which venues, closing prices, market-data feeds, corporate-action adjustments, or calculation times would be used for the named stocks and ETFs. It also does not say whether the contracts would share a price source across every underlying, how an ETF's indicative value would be treated outside normal hours, or how an index or reference price would respond to an exchange halt. These are not minor implementation choices in a product designed to trade when the underlying market may not be open, but the reported plan does not yet answer them.

The absence of those terms limits the comparisons that can be made with crypto perps. CoinDesk says perpetuals are widely used in crypto, where venues such as Hyperliquid permit margin-financed positions at any hour. It does not say that the trading calendar, reference markets, surveillance arrangements, data availability, or contract controls applicable to crypto markets are identical to those needed for derivatives linked to U.S.-listed equities.

What the current record does and does not show

The confirmed reporting supports a specific account. Kalshi is reported to be planning a request for approval to offer about 60 stock and ETF perpetual futures, including contracts connected to Tesla, Apple and Nvidia, on a 24/7 basis. The products have not been reported as listed, and the available account does not publish their individual specifications or a date on which a regulator will decide the request.

The report also supports a specific description of the disagreement. Citadel Securities has urged SEC oversight for products tied to U.S. public companies and raised concerns about surveillance, insider trading, manipulation, trading halts, order handling and market access. Those are stated concerns about how an all-hours equity-linked derivative could interact with securities markets. They are not public findings that Kalshi has violated a rule, that an equity perpetual has been manipulated, or that a regulator has selected one jurisdictional answer.

The CFTC's own 2026 releases add a procedural point without filling in the equity-product gaps. The agency has used its authority to stay a self-certified 24/7 crude-oil futures contract while it assesses consistency with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. It has also sought comments on 24/7 futures and energy-commodity perpetuals. The documents concern energy instruments, and neither release names Kalshi's reported stock or ETF products.

For Kalshi, the next verifiable development would be a filed product submission, a CFTC or SEC action, or a published contract specification that identifies the reference price, hours, funding design, position limits, market-halt treatment, and surveillance arrangements. Until one of those records is public, the factual position remains the one reported by CoinDesk: Kalshi intends to pursue an equity-perpetual expansion, while the regulatory structure for it remains contested.