The proposed U.S. venue would put always-on, retail-focused contracts inside a separate regulated exchange and clearing structure, subject to approvals.
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and Trade[XYZ] have agreed to bring Trade[XYZ]’s Hyperliquid-based perpetual markets into a U.S. regulated framework, opening a potential route for retail customers to trade around-the-clock contracts referencing equities, indices, commodities, currencies and crypto assets. The companies say they will seek the necessary regulatory approvals, including those for leveraged trading; no launch date or approval outcome was announced.
Under the agreement, ICE will be the exclusive operator of Trade[XYZ]’s regulated markets and is expected to establish a dedicated market and clearing structure. ICE is also making a strategic minority investment in Trade[XYZ]. The arrangement combines Trade[XYZ]’s product experience in perpetual markets with ICE’s exchange, clearing and regulatory infrastructure. It is a proposed operating model, however, not evidence that U.S. customers can already access these contracts or that regulators have approved their design.
A separate retail business within an institutional exchange group
ICE framed the move as a new retail growth channel that can sit alongside its established institutional franchise. The company said more than 99% of its current market participation is institutional. Its commercial hedgers generally use dated futures, forward curves and central clearing to manage exposures over longer horizons. Perpetuals serve a different purpose: they do not expire on a fixed date and are designed to provide shorter-duration exposure, with funding mechanisms commonly used to keep contract prices near a reference market.
That distinction is central to ICE’s case. The exchange says the proposed retail structure would be separate from its existing institutional futures and clearing business, and that commercial hedgers would not bear exposure to trading or counterparty risk on the new platform. The legal, operational and financial boundaries will matter more than the label “separate”: regulators and market participants will want to understand how customer assets, default management, liquidity, risk limits, technology and governance are ring-fenced in practice.
ICE’s move follows its broader exploration of onchain and retail access. The exchange has already been linked to Hyperliquid discussions around perpetual markets, while a separate ICE-OKX venture is pursuing U.S. broker-dealer and FCM registrations. ICE and OKX have also outlined an initial connection through Brent and WTI perpetual contracts. The proposed Trade[XYZ] venue would represent another layer: a market operator and clearing model designed specifically for regulated retail perpetuals.
Hyperliquid infrastructure meets U.S. market rules
Trade[XYZ] deploys real-world-asset perpetual markets on Hyperliquid, a blockchain-based derivatives venue. In the existing model described by the companies, Hyperliquid supplies underlying infrastructure while Trade[XYZ] designs and implements the contracts. The onshore proposal introduces a more complex question than simply connecting a blockchain to an exchange: which activities will occur onchain, which legal entity will control each function, and how will the platform meet U.S. obligations for market surveillance, customer identification, anti-money laundering, trade reporting and clearing?
The companies say customers would be KYC/AML verified and expected to access markets through futures commission merchants that become members of the platform. This suggests a regulated intermediary layer between retail users and the venue. The exact contractual chain, custody arrangements, collateral rules and settlement mechanics remain to be disclosed. Those details will determine whether the product retains the availability and user experience associated with crypto-native markets while meeting the controls expected of U.S. derivatives markets.
ICE’s strategy is developing as regulators and established exchanges scrutinise the offshore perpetual model. CME and ICE have previously raised concerns about risks associated with Hyperliquid, including market integrity and sanctions controls. That context makes the proposed compliance architecture important: the firms are seeking to use an infrastructure associated with open, always-on trading while placing the regulated market under ICE’s operating responsibility.
Distribution is planned, but access is not yet approved
ICE expects distribution through brokers and platforms that retail traders already use. One possible channel is its joint venture with OKX, whose U.S. broker-dealer and FCM subsidiaries still require their own regulatory approvals. The proposed Trade[XYZ] contracts therefore depend on multiple authorization tracks: approvals for the market and clearing structure, leveraged trading and any distribution partners involved.
That distinction matters for customers. An agreement and strategic investment can establish commercial intent, but they do not settle questions such as which products will be listed first, how leverage will be capped, whether trading will be available in all states, what disclosures customers will receive, or how disputes and defaults will be handled. It also remains unclear how ICE will make reference prices reliable outside conventional market hours, when the underlying equities or futures markets may be closed.
Other FinanceFeeds coverage has tracked how the ICE-OKX relationship is evolving, including questions raised over tokenized U.S. shares on OKX-ICE and ICE’s wider institutional-data efforts around prediction markets in its Polymarket signals and sentiment tool. Together, these developments show ICE building links across traditional market infrastructure, digital assets and retail distribution, while each product still faces its own regulatory and commercial tests.
The commercial case also depends on whether retail customers can use the contracts without confusing them with spot ownership or dated futures. Product names, funding payments, margin requirements and liquidation procedures will influence the actual exposure. A regulated market can improve oversight, but it cannot remove the risks of leverage, volatility or trading when related cash markets are closed.
Takeaway: ICE is positioning regulated perpetuals as an incremental retail business rather than a replacement for its institutional futures franchise. The proposal’s significance will depend on the approvals and architecture that follow: a separate structure must be demonstrably effective, and the use of Hyperliquid infrastructure must fit within a clear U.S. accountability model.