Hyperliquid Is Coming to the US: Inside the Kraken Bitnomial Talks, the CME Pushback, and the $30M Lazarus Problem

Hyperliquid for US traders moved from a presidential soundbite to a concrete deal structure this week. Bloomberg reported on Monday, August 31, that Hyperliquid Labs is in advanced talks with Payward, the parent company of Kraken, to bring perpetual futures tied to Hyperliquid assets to US-based traders through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated exchange and clearinghouse that Payward owns. Sources say Payward has already submitted a proposal framework to the CFTC.

HYPE responded by pushing to $84.36 on Tuesday, within 3% of the $86.75 all-time high, on the back of $56.86 million in weekly spot ETF inflows, the strongest week since June. Then the second story hit. On September 1, Arkham reported that wallets linked to the North Korea-backed Lazarus Group had moved more than $30 million through Hyperliquid. Same platform, same week, two very different headlines for the CFTC to weigh.

What does the Payward Bitnomial deal actually look like?

The structure matters more than the announcement. Hyperliquid itself is not registering in the US. Bitnomial is a designated contract market and clearinghouse already under CFTC oversight. Under the proposed arrangement, Bitnomial would list perpetual futures contracts whose prices track assets built on Hyperliquid's chain, and registered US users would trade those contracts on Bitnomial's venue.

That is a wrapper, not an integration. US traders would get exposure to Hyperliquid-priced perps inside a regulated US derivatives market, while Hyperliquid's on-chain order book continues to operate offshore for everyone else. Liquidity would connect through pricing and, presumably, through hedging flows between Bitnomial market makers and the Hyperliquid book.

No timeline has been published. Neither company has issued an official statement, and the CFTC has not confirmed receipt of a filing. Advanced talks in crypto regulatory land can mean weeks or quarters.

Why is the CFTC suddenly open to Hyperliquid perps?

Three things converged in August. President Trump stated publicly that his administration was working to bring Hyperliquid into the US "in a fully compliant and legal fashion." The CFTC's Innovation Advisory Committee put perpetual contracts and Hyperliquid on the agenda for its August 20 meeting, where the Hyperliquid Policy Center submitted a statement advocating for on-chain infrastructure in US derivatives markets. And CFTC Chair Selig said he had directed the agency to develop clearer crypto rules if Congress does not pass the Clarity Act by year end.

The Clarity Act has cleared the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support and is heading toward a floor vote. If it passes, the CFTC gets explicit jurisdiction over digital commodity derivatives, which is precisely the category a Bitnomial-listed Hyperliquid perp would fall under.

The push is not without opposition. CME Group and ICE have reportedly warned both the CFTC and Capitol Hill that Hyperliquid's decentralized perpetual futures could enable market manipulation and sanctions evasion. The incumbents have every commercial reason to slow this down. CME's own crypto futures are the product a US-accessible Hyperliquid would compete with directly.

How much does the Lazarus $30 million matter?

More than the HYPE price reaction suggests. Sanctions evasion is the exact objection CME and ICE raised, and Arkham's report hands them a fresh example. Wallets linked to Lazarus moved over $30 million through the platform, with a second cluster of addresses that Arkham has not yet confirmed as belonging to the same actors. OFAC and the CFTC will both look at this.

The counterargument, and it is a real one, is that Hyperliquid is a transparent on-chain venue. Every trade, deposit, and withdrawal is public. Arkham identified the flow precisely because the chain makes attribution possible in a way that opaque offshore CEX order books do not. A regulated wrapper through Bitnomial would sit inside US KYC and AML rails regardless of what happens on the underlying chain. The question the CFTC has to answer is whether that separation is clean enough.

What does US access do to Hyperliquid volume and HYPE?

The market is pricing the optionality. HYPE is up over 195% year to date, Hyperliquid processed $61.93 billion in volume last week with $16.45 million in revenue, and HIP-3 markets for equities and commodities already account for close to half of daily volume on peak days. A US onramp would add the largest pool of retail and institutional derivatives capital in the world to a venue that already runs open interest north of $3 billion on HIP-3 alone.

The revenue mechanics feed directly into tokenomics. 99% of trading fees fund HYPE buybacks and burns, and AQAv2 now routes USDC reserve yield into the same engine starting October 3. More volume means more burn. That is why every US-access headline moves HYPE harder than it moves any other exchange token.

What US access does not do is change the orderflow you can already read. Hyperliquid's on-chain book means whale positions, liquidation levels, and funding dynamics are fully visible today, US access or not. Buildix was built Hyperliquid-native from the start for exactly that reason, and the wallet tracker at buildix.trade/wallet attributes large positions on HYPE, BTC, and every HIP-3 market to specific addresses so you can see who is positioning ahead of a CFTC decision rather than reacting to it after the fact.

The deal is a when, not an if, according to the people briefing Bloomberg. The Lazarus flows are the reason it might be a slower when than the HYPE chart is assuming.

FAQ: Hyperliquid US access and the Kraken deal

Can US traders use Hyperliquid? Not directly. Hyperliquid remains unavailable to US users. The proposed Payward deal would let US traders access perpetual futures tied to Hyperliquid assets through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated exchange.

What is Bitnomial? A CFTC-regulated US derivatives exchange and clearinghouse owned by Payward, the parent company of Kraken. It would list the Hyperliquid-linked contracts under the proposed arrangement.

When will Hyperliquid launch in the US? No timeline has been announced. Bloomberg describes the talks as advanced and says a proposal framework has been submitted to the CFTC, but neither company has confirmed a date.

Why are CME and ICE against Hyperliquid? They have reportedly warned regulators that a decentralized perp venue could enable manipulation and sanctions evasion. They also compete directly with Hyperliquid for crypto derivatives volume.

What happened with Lazarus and Hyperliquid? Arkham reported on September 1, 2026 that wallets linked to the Lazarus Group moved more than $30 million through the platform. The flows are under review and no official statement has been issued.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency trading involves substantial risk of loss. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.