Hyperliquid Tests Optional Onchain Access Lists for Perpetual Markets

Hyperliquid is adding a way for market deployers to restrict who can trade in their perpetual futures markets. The proposed access controls are optional, run through an onchain allowlist and are being tested on testnet. Payward, Kraken’s parent company, says it intends to use them for markets operated by its trading and clearing entities, subject to approval.

The change matters because HIP-3 currently gives outside builders a framework for deploying their own perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid. HIP-3* would add permission settings to that framework. A deployer, or a sub-deployer it authorizes, would control the list of eligible traders for a market. Hyperliquid says existing markets will not be altered, and deployers can choose whether to use the feature.

That makes the proposed system a market-level access mechanism rather than a change to all trading on the exchange. A market using an allowlist could limit participation to approved accounts, while a market without one would not use this added restriction. The list is maintained onchain, so access is tied to data and permissions associated with the market’s deployment. The post did not explain how accounts would be added or removed, how quickly changes would take effect, or what recourse users would have if access were disputed.

Payward’s proposed operating structure

Payward outlined its plan on Sept. 16. Under that arrangement, Bitnomial would launch and operate the markets, then clear and settle their trades. Bitnomial is registered with the CFTC as an exchange and clearinghouse. NinjaTrader Clearing, a Payward entity registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, would hold client accounts.

Payward said participation would be limited to accounts signed up with NinjaTrader and included on allowlists maintained by both NinjaTrader and Bitnomial. The setup therefore involves multiple points of control: Hyperliquid supplies the market framework, the deployer controls market settings, and Payward’s entities would determine which client accounts qualify for access. Bitnomial’s stated role covers market operation and the handling of clearing and settlement.

Payward reported 6.6 million funded accounts as of June 30. That figure gives a sense of the company’s account base, but it does not indicate how many accounts would be eligible for these markets or how many would participate. The proposed access rules place eligibility at the account level; the source does not specify whether customers could hold multiple accounts, what screening would apply, or how the two allowlists would be reconciled if they differed.

In its Sept. 16 release, Payward co-CEO Arjun Sethi said, “Payward intends to be the first, holding the keys and carrying the regulatory obligations.” Hyperliquid’s Oct. 26 post said Payward intended to be the first CFTC-regulated firm to use the feature, but that the arrangement still required approval. Neither company has provided a live trading date or published contract details.

Testnet status leaves key details open

The first version of the feature is running on testnet, and Hyperliquid described its specifications as preliminary. Feedback could lead to changes before the feature is included in a future network upgrade. That means the current design is not yet a live-market capability, and the final behavior may differ from what testers can examine now.

For market users, the central operational question is how access will be administered. An onchain list can make a market’s eligibility rules part of its technical configuration, but the existence of that list alone does not explain who qualifies, who can update it, or how those decisions are communicated. Those details matter to traders assessing whether they can enter or exit positions, and to operators responsible for account eligibility and market administration.

There is also a distinction between the exchange framework and the businesses using it. Hyperliquid says each deployer controls its own markets and is responsible for them. In Payward’s proposed structure, the named entities would take on specific operating, account and clearing roles. The available details do not describe how those responsibilities would be divided in unusual cases, such as an account losing eligibility while it has an open position.

Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan welcomed Payward’s plan on Oct. 27, writing, “We’re honored that they are building on Hyperliquid to bring the next evolution of perpetual markets to the United States.” Hyperliquid had described itself as neutral infrastructure intended to support large parts of the financial system. Those statements express the companies’ aims; the feature’s practical reach will depend on the final specifications, approval and a live deployment.

For now, the concrete development is a testnet feature that lets HIP-3 deployers choose market-specific access restrictions. The next details to watch are the final upgrade specifications, the account-list procedures and whether Payward’s proposed markets progress to live trading.

Get Unchained’s crypto news in your inbox with the free Unchained Daily newsletter.

Related Listen: Could Decentralizing Further Be Hyperliquid’s Best Bet for Handling US Regulation?

Source links: Hyperliquid’s post on X, Payward’s Sept. 16 release, and Jeff Yan’s post on X.