Gillibrand’s Son Raises $30 Million for U.S. Perps Exchange

Why Is A New Perps Venue Seeking U.S. Approval?

The American Perpetuals Exchange Corporation has raised $30 million at an estimated $300 million valuation as it seeks to build a regulated U.S. venue for perpetual futures. The startup, led by Theodore Gillibrand, son of New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, plans to file for a Designated Contract Market license with a special exemption to list perpetual futures on single-name equities under joint Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission oversight, according to a June 4 memo. The fundraising round was led by Lux Capital, according to the report. The company’s plan comes as U.S. regulators are trying to bring clearer rules to products that have grown rapidly offshore but remain legally contested in domestic markets. Perpetual futures, widely used in crypto markets, allow traders to take leveraged long or short exposure without a fixed expiration date. They are popular because they offer continuous exposure and deep liquidity, but they also raise questions around leverage, retail access, clearing, market surveillance, and whether the contracts should be treated as futures or swaps under existing law.

How Does The SEC-CFTC Harmonization Push Fit In?

The CFTC and SEC are currently working on a harmonization strategy for novel markets and asset classes, including crypto and perpetual futures. That effort is central to APEC’s strategy because the firm is seeking a structure that would place single-name equity perps under joint oversight rather than forcing the product into one agency’s framework. The June 4 memo said Theodore Gillibrand met with SEC and CFTC officials to discuss perps regulatory harmonization. Representatives from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, BGR Group, and Arktouros PLLC also attended the meeting, including crypto lawyer Rebecca Rettig. The memo framed the absence of a domestic venue as a regulatory weakness rather than a reason to block the product. “The absence of a regulated U.S. venue does not eliminate demand for equity perpetual futures,” according to the memo log. “It redirects that demand to offshore platforms outside the reach of U.S. oversight, where participants have no recourse and regulators have no visibility.” That argument is becoming more common in U.S. market structure debates. Instead of asking whether demand exists, regulators are being asked whether the activity should remain offshore or move into supervised venues with clearing, disclosures, and surveillance.

Investor Takeaway

APEC’s pitch depends on a regulatory trade-off: allow a high-demand product inside the U.S. perimeter, or leave trading activity on offshore platforms with weaker visibility. The outcome could shape how equity-linked perps are treated across exchanges, brokers, and clearing houses.

Why Is The Perps Debate Legally Sensitive?

The push comes after the CFTC approved Kalshi’s request to list the first official bitcoin perpetual future in the U.S. and allowed Coinbase to list long-dated “perp-style” futures. Kraken has also announced plans to launch crypto perps on Kraken Pro. Those approvals have drawn legal resistance from CME Group, which sued the CFTC over the decisions. CME argues that perpetuals are legally swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, not futures, and that Kalshi and Coinbase were effectively allowed to avoid stricter swap rules designed to guard against systemic risk. The lawsuit highlights the core legal question for APEC. If perps are treated as futures, venues may have a clearer path through the DCM framework. If they are treated as swaps, the rulebook becomes heavier, with different clearing, reporting, and risk requirements. APEC also intends to apply for a Derivatives Clearing Organization license, which would allow it to clear transactions in-house. That would give the company more control over the full trading and clearing stack, but it also raises the regulatory burden. A DCO license requires financial resources, risk systems, compliance staff, and a legal framework strong enough to support exchange operations.

What Are The Market Implications?

The memo states that APEC is seeking significant capital as part of the licensing process because DCM and DCO registration requires demonstrated financial resources and extensive legal spending. Capital would be allocated toward regulatory capital, compliance infrastructure, technical systems, and the legal buildout required for exchange operations. The company’s backers are betting that the first approved U.S. perpetuals exchange could gain an early advantage. “The company that most aptly navigates the licensing process will have a considerable market edge, and as the first regulated perpetuals exchange there is endless potential for value capture,” the memo states. That market opportunity is not limited to crypto. APEC’s focus on single-name equity perps would bring the structure closer to mainstream equity trading, where retail and institutional investors already use options, futures, and contracts for difference in different jurisdictions. A regulated U.S. equity perps market could create a new venue category between securities exchanges, futures exchanges, and offshore derivatives platforms. The political context will draw attention. Senator Gillibrand has been one of the crypto industry’s most active Democratic supporters and has worked with Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis on digital asset legislation, including earlier versions of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act and the GENIUS Act covering stablecoins. For investors and market operators, the key issue is whether regulators are ready to approve a new structure while the legal status of perps is still being challenged. APEC’s funding gives it capital to pursue the license, but the larger test will be whether the CFTC and SEC can agree on a framework that survives legal pressure from incumbent exchanges.