Cboe Global Markets has pushed back against the idea that Bitcoin perpetual futures and zero-days-to-expiration options should be treated as similar products, arguing that the two instruments behave very differently in practice.
The debate matters for crypto investors because perpetual futures are a core trading tool in digital assets, and US regulators are now dealing more directly with how these products fit into the regulated derivatives market. Cboe says the differences come down to payoff structure, risk limits, and how traders typically use each product.
#Why is Cboe challenging the comparison
Cboe is challenging the comparison after the regulated US market took a step toward crypto-native perpetual futures. According to the source material, the CFTC approved Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contracts in late May 2026, prompting debate over whether perpetuals resemble 0DTE options closely enough to be viewed in similar terms.
Cboe's position is that they do not. The exchange operator says perpetual futures have a linear payoff, which means gains and losses move directly with the underlying asset. If a position is leveraged, losses can build quickly and may trigger liquidation. By contrast, a buyer of a 0DTE option knows the maximum loss upfront because it is limited to the premium paid.
For retail investors, that distinction is important. One product can expose you to open-ended downside if the market moves sharply against you, while the other can offer defined risk for the option buyer.
#What is the core difference in risk
The core difference in risk is that perpetual futures do not expire and can carry uncapped downside depending on position size and leverage, while 0DTE options expire within the same trading day and often come with a fixed maximum loss for buyers.
Cboe also points to how these products are used. In its view, perpetual futures are mainly vehicles for leveraged speculation, while 0DTE options are more often used for hedging or income strategies. That does not make 0DTE options safe or simple, but it does mean the risk profile is not the same.
The source says around 92% of SPX 0DTE activity uses capped-risk structures. That statistic supports Cboe's argument that much of this market is built around defined-risk positioning rather than the open-ended exposure common in leveraged futures trading.
A sharper way to see the markets in just 5 minutes.
Same news, different lens. We cut through the noise and hand you the overlooked ideas and the deeper read the crowd misses. Join 38,000+ investors seeing the markets differently.
#What did Cboe's case study show
Cboe's case study showed how differently the two instruments can respond during the same market move. On April 21, 2026, the S&P 500 fell 0.94% intraday. Using two hypothetical positions with equivalent notional exposure, the paper said a 10 times leveraged short perpetual future returned 9.4%, while an at-the-money SPX 0DTE put returned 404%.
That gap reflects options convexity. When a same-day option moves toward or into the money, its value can accelerate quickly because of gamma, a measure of how fast the option's delta changes as the underlying price moves. Perpetual futures do not have that kind of payoff curve. Their returns remain broadly linear.
For investors, this is a useful reminder that instruments that appear similar on the surface can produce very different outcomes. A product tied to short-term price moves is not automatically interchangeable with another just because both can be used to trade volatility.
#Why does this matter for crypto markets
This matters for crypto markets because perpetual futures are one of the most widely used derivatives in digital assets, especially on offshore exchanges. As these contracts move further into regulated US markets, policymakers and investors need to understand that structure matters as much as the underlying asset.
A Bitcoin perpetual future may look like a flexible trading instrument, but its leverage, margin rules, and liquidation mechanics can create risks that differ sharply from listed options. If regulators treat very different products as functional equivalents, investor protections and disclosure standards may not match the actual risks involved.
That is the broader point behind Cboe's argument. Even if the exchange has a business incentive to defend the options market, the distinction it highlights is relevant for anyone comparing crypto derivatives with traditional listed products.
#What should retail investors watch next
Retail investors should watch how US regulators classify and supervise crypto derivatives, especially as more products enter mainstream venues. They should also pay attention to whether a product offers defined risk, how leverage works, when liquidation can happen, and whether the payoff is linear or convex.
Those details can shape outcomes far more than the headline label. In crypto markets, where volatility is already high, misunderstanding product structure can turn a short-term trading idea into a much larger loss than expected.