Kalshi Inc., the federally regulated prediction-market operator that has spent the past several years turning event contracts into a mainstream retail product, is now asking U.S. regulators to approve a perpetual oil futures contract — a request that has drawn immediate opposition from established commodity exchanges and opened a broader fight over how far retail traders should be allowed to reach into leveraged, never-expiring derivatives.

According to Bloomberg Markets, commodity exchanges are urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to withhold approval of the proposed perpetual oil futures contract and to close a loophole that gives retail traders access to offshore platforms. Rigzone separately reported that Kalshi has submitted a bid to the CFTC for a "perpetual style" oil contract, while Seeking Alpha framed the filing more bluntly: Kalshi is seeking to list "never-ending" oil futures. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the exchanges' objections.

What Kalshi Is Asking For

Perpetual futures — contracts with no expiry date that track an underlying asset and are typically held open indefinitely — are a fixture of offshore and crypto-native derivatives venues. They are not a standard product on U.S. regulated exchanges, where futures traditionally carry delivery or cash-settlement dates. Kalshi operates as a designated contract market (DCM) under CFTC oversight, a status that has allowed it to list event contracts on topics ranging from elections and economic data to weather and sports.

Bringing a perpetual contract on crude oil into that framework would be a meaningful expansion: it would put a product associated with high leverage and continuous rollover into a venue accessible to U.S. retail participants, under federal supervision rather than offshore jurisdiction.

The Exchanges' Objection

The opposition from incumbent commodity exchanges centers on two arguments, according to Bloomberg's reporting. First, that a perpetual oil contract is a material departure from the types of contracts Congress and the CFTC have historically contemplated for retail-accessible DCMs. Second, and more pointedly, that approving it would legitimize a structure — continuous, non-expiring leveraged exposure — that offshore platforms have used to attract retail traders outside the U.S. regulatory perimeter. Incumbent exchanges, which list dated, standardized futures with established margin and delivery mechanics, have an obvious commercial interest as well: a perpetual product that never rolls could pull retail volume away from conventional contracts.

The dispute is less about one contract than about where the boundary sits between regulated retail derivatives and the leverage-heavy products long confined to offshore venues.

A Precedent Already Set in Metals

The oil filing does not arrive in a vacuum. Kalshi has already launched gold and silver perpetual futures with CFTC approval, according to Yahoo Finance — a detail that undercuts any claim that perpetual structures are categorically outside the agency's framework. That metals precedent is likely central to Kalshi's argument: if perpetual precious-metals contracts cleared the CFTC, the company can argue that an oil equivalent is a question of product design and risk management rather than legality.

Critics are likely to counter that oil is a different animal. Crude is a physically delivered, geopolitically sensitive commodity whose price can gap violently on supply shocks, sanctions, or conflict — precisely the conditions under which a non-expiring leveraged position can produce losses that outrun a retail trader's account equity. Metals, while volatile, have historically been treated more gently in retail product design.

Volume Growth Draws Scrutiny

The regulatory question is unfolding against a backdrop of explosive growth in prediction-market trading. CNBC reported on scrutiny of Kalshi and Polymarket trading volumes on certain products amid what it described as massive growth — a signal that supervisors and market observers are beginning to ask whether reported volumes reflect genuine liquidity or are inflated by incentive programs, market-making arrangements, or wash-like activity.

That scrutiny matters for the oil filing. A regulator weighing a novel leveraged product will want confidence in the integrity of the venue's volume data and surveillance. Questions about how trading activity is generated and reported on some contracts complicate Kalshi's case that it can responsibly operate a continuous, high-leverage commodity market.

The Loophole Question

Perhaps the most consequential element of the exchanges' petition is the demand that the CFTC close the loophole giving retail traders access to offshore platforms. That framing folds Kalshi's application into a much older policy debate: how U.S. authorities should treat offshore derivatives venues that offer U.S.-adjacent retail users products unavailable domestically.

Regulators have historically chosen enforcement over rulemaking on this front, pursuing offshore operators case by case. Exchanges argue that approving a domestic perpetual contract effectively imports the offshore product model onshore under a regulatory seal of approval — and that if the CFTC wants to permit perpetuals, it should do so through a deliberate rulemaking rather than a single-company approval order.

What Happens Next

The CFTC has not indicated a timeline. The agency could approve the contract, deny it, or — as is common with novel products — solicit public comment, which would draw in exchanges, consumer advocates, and retail brokers. Kalshi's metals precedent gives it a plausible legal path, but the political economy is harder: incumbent exchanges are formidable Washington players, and the "offshore loophole" framing gives skeptics a compelling public-interest narrative.

• The bull case: Perpetual contracts already exist in regulated form for metals; approving oil extends a proven framework and keeps retail activity inside U.S. supervision.
• The bear case: Oil's gap risk and leverage profile make never-ending contracts unsuitable for retail access without bespoke safeguards; approval would validate an offshore-style product structure.
• The wildcard: Volume-integrity questions at Kalshi and Polymarket could slow any novel product approval regardless of its merits.

For now, the story is a familiar one in modern market structure: a fast-growing, technology-native venue testing the perimeter of U.S. derivatives regulation, with the incumbents it threatens asking the regulator to hold the line.