CFTC Seeks Comment on Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts

As access to computing power (compute) becomes a larger and more consequential cost for companies developing and deploying artificial intelligence (AI), interest is growing in tools that can help manage exposure to changes in compute pricing and availability. On August 21, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) published a request for comment (RFC) seeking input on development and regulation of derivatives contracts referencing compute.¹ In the RFC, the Commission recognizes that compute derivatives could support risk management and price discovery while identifying challenges to the development of a mature market, including opaque pricing, market concentration, limited standardization and fungibility, and uncertainty regarding the appropriate underlying compute commodity.

Key Takeaways and Significance of the RFC

• The RFC gives market participants an opportunity to weigh in on the development of a regulated compute derivatives market. Companies across compute and derivatives markets — including cloud and compute providers, AI companies, data and benchmark providers, exchanges, trading firms, and intermediaries — can provide input on the CFTC regulatory requirements that should apply to these markets while the market structure is still developing. Comments are due October 20, 2026.
• The RFC addresses several substantive areas relating to the development of compute derivatives markets, with a principal focus on the listing of compute derivatives on designated contract markets (DCMs). These include compute cash market characteristics, susceptibility to manipulation and related benchmark and surveillance issues, and customer protection. The RFC also includes a general request for comment and encourages empirical and data-driven input that may assist the Commission in evaluating compute derivatives markets.
• Defining and standardizing the underlying “commodity” is a threshold issue. The RFC raises questions regarding the treatment of compute as a “commodity” under Section 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA),² including what form of compute should serve as the underlier and how relevant variables should be standardized. The Commission notes that the underlier could be rented compute capacity or another compute-related commodity, such as large language model inference tokens, and preliminarily believes that standardization would likely be needed for both settlement references and physical delivery.
• The RFC also reaches beyond DCM-listed futures. The Commission specifically addresses perpetual compute futures and seeks comment on compute swaps listed on swap execution facilities (SEFs).

Compute Derivatives and DCMs

The RFC seeks industry input on how such a compute derivatives market could develop “in a manner that promotes transparency, liquidity, and responsible innovation.”³ The RFC focuses primarily on the listing of compute derivatives on DCMs and, accordingly, considers how those products would fit within the existing DCM regulatory framework. DCMs are CFTC-regulated exchanges that must comply with statutory core principles under the CEA.⁴

The RFC highlights several issues under the core principles, including the following:

• Core Principle 3, which requires a DCM to list only contracts not readily susceptible to manipulation. The CFTC notes that most compute derivatives initially are likely to be cash settled.⁵ The CFTC’s guidance regarding Core Principle 3 outlines key considerations for cash-settled contracts, including whether settlement prices are reliable, acceptable, publicly available, and timely, and whether the underlying cash market is sufficiently liquid and not itself readily susceptible to manipulation. According to the CFTC, these considerations present real challenges in the fragmented and opaque compute market.
• Core Principle 4, which requires DCMs to have the capacity to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions to the delivery or cash-settlement process through market surveillance, compliance, and enforcement practices. According to the CFTC, these obligations raise novel questions for compute derivatives due to the opacity of bilateral compute markets, the concentration of capacity among a small number of providers, and questions regarding information-sharing arrangements between DCMs and compute venues, all of which may challenge a DCM’s ability to conduct adequate market surveillance over compute settlement prices.

Key Challenges Identified by the CFTC

The Commission has identified significant structural challenges to developing a mature compute derivatives market, including:

1. Fragmentation and opacity. Opaque bilateral transactions drive pricing, limiting access to current and historical price data and hindering price discovery.
2. Market concentration. Major providers may exercise significant pricing power, raising manipulability concerns and the potential for preferential pricing arrangements.
3. Lack of fungibility, standardization, and liquidity. Pricing varies dramatically by provider, region, and contract structure. Compute may not yet exhibit the fungibility, standardization, and liquidity that typically characterize commodity derivatives underliers, although in some respects it may share characteristics with power contracts and capacity derivatives.

Key Topic Areas Covered by the RFC’s Questions

The RFC’s questions cover four broad topic areas: compute cash market considerations, market oversight, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, along with a general request for input.

1. Compute cash markets: The RFC asks about issues including price behavior in compute markets; data sources for market size, liquidity, and other key variables; the public disclosure of compute transaction prices; differences between compute markets and other cash markets underlying derivatives regulated by the Commission; potential effects of compute derivatives on cash markets; and considerations around position limits or accountability levels.
2. Market oversight and manipulation risk: The RFC asks about issues including the features a cash-settled compute contract must demonstrate to satisfy Core Principle 3, the surveillance capabilities required to satisfy Core Principle 4, and whether any existing compute price series could serve as a reliable settlement reference.
3. Customer protection: The RFC asks about issues including anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer concerns specific to compute markets, disclosure obligations arising from the geopolitical sensitivity of compute, and protections appropriate for retail participants.
4. Perpetual compute futures: The RFC asks whether perpetual compute futures⁶ would offer commercial risk management advantages over traditional fixed-date contracts and what unique risks such contracts might pose.

The RFC presents an opportunity for current and potential market participants, intermediaries, and infrastructure providers to provide input on the development of compute derivatives markets and the design of derivatives contracts referencing compute. The Commission’s questions suggest it is prepared to follow the RFC with regulatory action addressing compute derivatives markets, and the framework that emerges will reflect the input it receives.

---

¹ Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, 91 Fed. Reg. 54259 (Aug. 21, 2026), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/21/2026-17163/request-for-comment-on-the-listing-of-compute-derivatives-contracts.

² 7 U.S.C. § 1a et seq.

³ 91 Fed. Reg. at 54260.

⁴ The RFC at note 6 also states that similar principles apply to the listing of compute cash and physically deliverable swaps on a SEF.

⁵ Id. at 54262.

⁶ “Perpetual futures” are derivatives that have no stated expiration date.