Hyperliquid Files First EU Submission Pushing MiCA on Onchain Perps

HypeMeter

High attention and emotional sentiment detected.

Chief Executive Officer Jake Chervinsky signed the document. It responds to the Commission’s targeted consultation on the review of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, better known as MiCA. The group calls it its first filing outside the United States.

What the Hyperliquid Policy Center Filed

The filing is a PDF addressed to DG FISMA in Brussels. It is dated 30 September, the day the consultation closed at 23:59 CEST. You can read the full response on the group’s site.

The core argument is about classification. According to the Hyperliquid Policy Center, the law should follow the economic features of an instrument, not the ledger it sits on. So a crypto-asset that behaves like a financial instrument should stay under sectoral law.

Perpetual futures are the example. The filing says perps “carry the characteristics of the derivatives MiFID II already recognises” and “should be governed by that framework.” In short, the group wants perps treated as derivatives, not as a new MiCA category.

Crucially, the group does not ask for new legislation. Instead, it wants the Commission to confirm MiFID II coverage through existing ESMA guidelines. The announcement blog frames the ask as building on rules that already exist.

Why HPC Says Onchain Perps Are Not CFDs

The sharpest part of the Hyperliquid MiCA filing targets the EU’s 2018 product-intervention package for contracts for difference, or CFDs. The group asks the Commission not to apply that package mechanically to onchain perps.

The reasoning rests on structure. According to the group, a retail CFD is bilateral. The firm prices the product, takes the other side of the trade, and profits when the client loses.

Onchain perps work differently, the group argues. Orders match on a public central limit order book. The venue publishes funding rates, and the chain keeps a public record of trades, funding, and liquidations.

Instead of copying the CFD retail limits, the group proposes tailored safeguards. These include published funding, margin, and close-out mechanics, alongside multi-source reference prices and access phased by client category. It also argues that public onchain data can meet transparency goals, so firms would not need to refile information already available publicly.

The MiCA Review Behind the Filing

The EU adopted MiCA on 31 May 2023. Its stablecoin provisions began applying on 30 June 2024. The remaining provisions, including rules for crypto service providers, followed on 30 December 2024.

The regulation covers crypto-assets that are not already financial instruments. That carve-out sits at the heart of the Hyperliquid MiCA filing. If a perp qualifies as a financial instrument, MiFID II applies. Classification and the venue’s structure then determine which regulatory duties attach.

Meanwhile, the review runs on a fixed schedule. The Commission opened its consultations on 20 May 2026 and later extended the deadline to 30 September. Article 140 requires a report to Parliament and Council by 30 June 2027, with a legislative proposal if the evidence warrants one.

Consultation responses inform that report. They do not change the law when the submission deadline passes.

Where ESMA Stands on Perpetual Futures

The Hyperliquid MiCA filing faces an unresolved conflict. In February 2026, ESMA said products marketed as perpetual futures are likely to fall within national CFD intervention measures if they meet the CFD definition. The regulator stressed that the commercial name is irrelevant.

That position challenges Hyperliquid Policy Center’s request. The group argues against mechanically applying those measures to order-book perps. ESMA’s warning, however, makes the product’s legal characteristics decisive.

Meanwhile, ESMA submitted its own MiCA review response on 30 September. It called for clearer rules on decentralised services, staking, and lending. Those proposals would widen regulatory coverage, but they do not endorse HPC’s approach to perpetual futures.

The supplied research found no Commission comment on HPC’s filing. How regulators will reconcile ESMA’s February warning with the group’s proposed safeguards remains an open question.

HYPE Price and Trading Volume

The supplied research found no evidence that the Hyperliquid MiCA filing moved HYPE, the blockchain’s native asset. The token had already fallen from its 23 September all-time high near $97.96 before the announcement.

According to the cited OKX data, HYPE closed 30 September around $87.74 and traded near $89 on 1 October. The Defiant, citing CoinGecko, put it near $88.90, with a market cap around $19.8 billion and a ranking of eleventh.

Meanwhile, Hyperliquid’s trading volume remained substantial, although tracker totals differed. DefiLlama listed about $209.7 billion in 30-day perpetual volume. OpenChainBench showed roughly $187.5 billion in volume and $12.65 billion in open interest. Differences in coverage, including how trackers count HIP-3 markets, may explain the gap. Neither figure establishes a filing effect.

Early social engagement was limited. The main announcement had about 4,960 views and 101 likes when checked. Those figures offer little basis for attributing HYPE’s price movement to the policy submission.

What Happens Next

For now, the next move sits with Brussels. The Commission has not said whether it will publish the response or adopt the guideline route the group prefers.

Several questions stay open. The EU Survey submission time is not public, and no named EU official has engaged. It is also unclear whether the group wants Hyperliquid itself authorised, or only a path for EU intermediaries to use onchain books.

One tension is hard to miss. The Hyper Foundation funds the Hyperliquid Policy Center with 1,000,000 HYPE. The group is now asking the EU not to extend retail CFD limits to the product its own ecosystem dominates. Readers can weigh that as the Hyperliquid MiCA review runs toward its 2027 report.