Kalshi’s October bid to expand into U.S. crude oil derivatives has become more complicated than a regulatory application awaiting a decision. The exchange now displays a ten-year West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures product with trading activity on its perpetuals platform, even as established derivatives exchanges challenge the broader legal treatment of perpetual-style contracts.
Kalshi submitted its WTI proposal to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on October 7, seeking a long-dated instrument designed to trade around the clock on weekdays instead of following the monthly expirations used by conventional oil futures. At the time, the company was reported to face a 45-day initial CFTC review. Yet Kalshi’s own market page, together with independent trading-data observations from October 21, indicates its WTI product is already listed with market activity. Public materials reviewed for this article do not identify the specific regulatory action and date permitting that listing.
This distinction matters: the live-looking product should not be described as a proposal that definitely remains unlaunched, while the existence of a trading page should not be confused with locating a formal CFTC approval order. The broader dispute remains whether futures exchanges can adapt funding-based, long-duration contracts from crypto to physically traded commodities under U.S. law.
Is Kalshi’s Ten-Year WTI Oil Contract Already Trading?
The Kalshi WTI Oil perpetuals page identifies an instrument with a ten-year expiration and displays market volume, open interest and up to sixfold leverage. An independent live-data compilation timestamped October 21 at 2:03 p.m. Eastern also included the WTI contract among Kalshi’s actively tracked perpetuals.
The original October 7 Bloomberg account reported an application for a contract linked to the U.S. crude benchmark, with maturity once every decade and a 45-day CFTC review window. The filing represented Kalshi’s effort to bring oil exposure into the same broad product family as its cryptocurrency perpetual futures.
Neither the market page nor the October 7 report supplies an individually identified CFTC order showing when this WTI contract was authorized. The precise legal route, and whether any conditions or subsequent changes applied, therefore remains an important open disclosure question. Also, market activity does not mean every U.S. customer is eligible to trade the product.
The contract is distinct from Kalshi’s binary oil-price prediction markets. An event contract that settles according to whether WTI finishes above a threshold has different payoffs and risks from a leveraged future designed to track ongoing price changes.
How Does the Oil Product Change the Cost of Holding WTI Exposure?
Traditional WTI futures expire in monthly cycles, exposing traders who maintain a position over time to the need to close one delivery month and enter another. Prices for two contract months can differ because of storage costs, financing, supply conditions and expectations about future availability.
Kalshi’s structure reduces the need for frequent rollovers by extending maturity to ten years. Its funding mechanism is intended to keep the contract price close to the WTI reference index. That makes the product perpetual-style, not literally without an expiration date despite the branding used by some descriptions of the contract.
The platform describes a funding cycle three times per day, during which longs and shorts transfer an adjustment based on the relationship between the derivative and the reference price. Kalshi says funding is capped at 2% of position value per eight-hour window, though the actual terms governing a trade remain the controlling reference.
This substitutes one form of carrying cost for another. A long holder could pay repeated funding even as crude prices rise, reducing the net return; the funding direction can also reverse. Avoiding monthly rollovers is therefore not the same as avoiding the costs of maintaining exposure.
Oil also differs from bitcoin because physical barrels must be stored, transported and delivered. Cash settlement can avoid delivering crude to retail traders, but the economics still depend on real inventory, pipelines, delivery locations and prices observed in markets with different trading schedules.
Why Doesn’t Kalshi’s Bitcoin Approval Automatically Cover Oil?
On May 29, the CFTC approved Kalshi’s BTCPERP futures contract, finding the submitted design consistent with applicable futures requirements. But the order’s reasoning was restricted to bitcoin and similarly liquid digital commodities with active and continuous spot trading.
The regulator explicitly said the determination did not extend to other asset classes. Its June 22 consultation separately requested public input on perpetual derivatives referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities and on conventional futures trading 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Such contracts pose questions about market manipulation, reference-price resilience, margin, clearing operations and oversight during hours when commercial crude trading may be thin. A perpetual funding formula depends on a credible benchmark that cannot easily be pushed around by positions in the derivative itself.
Contracts submitted for individual approval ordinarily enter a 45-calendar-day review, with mechanisms allowing extensions for novel or complex issues or by agreement. That review period should not be treated as a guarantee of unconditional approval on a fixed date.
The same asset-specific distinction appears in DaveFinances’ reporting on OG.com’s proposed stock perpetual futures, where additional securities and futures requirements shape what operators can offer.
What Have CME, Nasdaq and Cboe Formally Opposed?
CME sued the CFTC on June 18 to challenge its May approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures. It argues that contracts with perpetual characteristics should qualify as swaps rather than conventional futures under Dodd-Frank, which can change the relevant rules for listing and offering them. The CFTC has sought dismissal, arguing in part that CME failed to show sufficient competitive injury.
The lawsuit creates uncertainty about the wider policy governing these products, but it is not a documented lawsuit challenging Kalshi’s specific October 7 oil contract. The exchange’s legal position remains contested rather than settled by a final ruling in that case.
Separately, the SEC’s public-comment register lists letters dated October 14 from CME, Nasdaq and Cboe opposing aspects of Kalshi’s proposal for perpetual futures on individual stocks. Those submissions concern security futures and potential security-based-swap classification, not a verified objection to the WTI application.
That qualification is central to accurate coverage. Objections to cryptocurrency and equity perpetuals are relevant regulatory context, but they should not be described as proof that all three exchanges formally objected to the oil filing itself.
Kalshi is also battling separate state challenges over sports event contracts. Utah’s recent suit against Kalshi and certain market makers concerns state gambling law, not whether a long-dated oil contract should be classified as a futures contract or a swap.
Why Did CME Drop Its Own Round-the-Clock Oil Contract?
On July 9, the CFTC stayed CME’s proposed 24/7 crude-oil futures listing, saying the regulator needed to assess its compatibility with market rules and the industry’s operational readiness before allowing it to launch through self-certification.
CME then withdrew the filing on October 2. In its own statement, CEO Terry Duffy said market participants had raised concerns that around-the-clock energy trading without sufficient preparation could introduce unintended risks.
That was a proposed 10-barrel contract with seven-day trading, not a proposal identical to Kalshi’s ten-year WTI product. Kalshi’s intended 24-hour, five-day trading week avoids continuous weekend dealing, while changing the contract’s expiration and funding design instead.
Weekend restrictions may reduce some operational concerns, but they do not settle how an oil reference price should function when liquidity is sparse. CME’s withdrawal also does not mean the CFTC prohibited all innovations in energy futures.
What Should Traders and Regulators Watch Next?
For regulators, the immediate information gap is the precise filing and authorization status of Kalshi’s displayed WTI market. A clearly identifiable CFTC record would establish when the product became eligible to trade and whether its long-dated structure is subject to conditions specific to crude oil.
For traders, headline volume and leverage limits are not enough to judge suitability. Spreads, executable order-book depth, funding costs, liquidation thresholds and sensitivity to changes in the WTI benchmark determine whether the product offers an effective alternative to conventional futures.
In previous reporting on Kalshi’s unusually repetitive crypto-perpetual trade sizes, the exchange attributed the pattern to a market-making program. That separate issue illustrates why high trading turnover does not automatically establish broad, independent liquidity or improper trading.
Kalshi’s website describes up to sixfold leverage on WTI oil futures, meaning price movements can quickly erode a trader’s posted margin. Funding payments and fees can compound the risk over longer holding periods even when rolling into a new monthly contract is unnecessary.
The key development as of October 22 is therefore more nuanced than a pending application confronting named oil-contract objectors. Kalshi submitted a novel WTI product for CFTC review, now displays the contract with trading activity, and faces an unsettled policy environment shaped by CME’s litigation and wider exchange objections to other perpetual products. Confirming the oil-specific regulatory record remains the next essential step.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574