An ironic reality, crypto exchanges have turned traditional assets into perpetual contracts, but no one gave these contracts options.
The derivatives market of 2026 is undergoing a structural restructuring. On the one hand, trading volumes in TradFi perpetuals are growing at dizzying speed - in August, the volume of Binance perpetual futures on traditional assets reached approximately $433 billion, almost 15 times the January figure. Coinbase launched stock perpetuals for the "Magnificent Seven", Bybit expanded its line of TradFi perpetuals to more than 200 assets with leverage up to 100x, and LBank reported exceeding $3 billion in daily TradFi trading volume. On the other hand, holders of these contracts face a fundamental gap - they have no options. This is a systemic rupture.
The prosperity of perpetuals and the absence of options
To understand the problem, one needs to understand the two forms in which TradFi derivatives exist on crypto exchanges.
The first is the CFD route, represented by Bybit and Gate. Users trade contracts for difference through MT5 sub-accounts, covering forex, indices, US stock CFDs, and commodities. This route essentially transfers traditional brokers' products onto crypto platforms. Limited trading hours (24/5), daily swaps, lot commissions.
The second is the perpetual contract route, launched by Binance in January 2026, joined by Bitget, Coinbase, and others. This route turns traditional assets into the form most familiar to crypto traders. Settlement in USDT, 7×24 trading, no expiration date, pegging to the spot price through the funding rate. Coinbase offers perpetuals on Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla with leverage up to 10x on individual stocks and up to 20x on ETFs. Bybit integrated TradFi perpetuals into the Unified Trading Account (UTA), allowing positions in stocks, commodities, and cryptocurrencies to be managed in one place.
The problem is that neither of these forms has corresponding options.
In late August, Binance did indeed announce trading in options on more than 1,000 US stocks and ETFs, but these are physically settled options through Nest Trading and Alpaca Securities. Upon exercise, the user receives real shares rather than closing risk on a TradFi perpetual on the same platform. In other words, your long position in TSLAUSDT on Binance has no corresponding TSLA option that can be bought to hedge it.
Why this "gap" is structural, not temporary
One could argue that this is only a matter of time. But on closer examination of the counterparty structure and settlement architecture, it becomes clear that this gap is far from being as simple as "not launched yet."
First, the linear risk structure of perpetuals cannot be replaced by hedging with spot or futures. The P&L of a perpetual is linear - a 1% change in the price of the underlying asset changes the value of the position by 1% (multiplied by leverage). Options provide a non-linear risk profile. Buying a put option means that the maximum loss is limited to the premium paid, while the potential profit is unlimited. For traders of TradFi perpetuals with 50x or 100x leverage, a 2% adverse move is enough for liquidation. Options should be a natural insurance for such high-risk positions, but that insurance is not on the shelf.
Bybit allows leverage up to 100x on TradFi perpetuals, LBank up to 500x on certain assets. At such levels, a "stop-loss" is the only protection mechanism. And the quality of stop-loss execution during volatility spikes and periods of thin liquidity is well known to anyone who has lived through extreme market moves.
Second, differences in counterparty structure make "over-the-counter custom options" practically unfeasible. In the traditional market, if an exchange does not list options on an asset, institutions can request a quote in the OTC market from a market maker. But this requires that the market maker be able to hedge delta in the spot or futures market. In the TradFi perpetual ecosystem of crypto exchanges, this premise is structurally fragile.
According to the classification of TradFi models of crypto exchanges, in the CFD route, counterparty risk essentially depends on the broker's own book (B-book). The broker is the direct counterparty to the user, and in jurisdictions without negative balance protection, losses may be passed back to the client. The perpetual contract route, although it looks more like an exchange product, still depends in settlement and risk management on the platform's insurance fund and automatic position reduction mechanisms.
When the depth of liquidity and liquidation mechanisms of the underlying perpetuals have not yet passed a full stress test, who would want to market-make options on these contracts? A market maker needs to hedge in the underlying market, and the pricing of TradFi perpetuals depends on weighted multi-source data (Pyth, dxFeed, Massive, Intrinio), mark price smoothing mechanisms during non-working hours, and the platform's own liquidation rules. The overlay of these factors makes pricing options on TradFi perpetuals a task that is not technically impossible, but economically unprofitable.
In a statement from February 2026, ESMA already clearly stated: products under the label of "perpetual futures," if they meet the definition of CFDs, must fall under the regulatory framework for CFDs - leverage restrictions, risk warnings, negative balance protection, and a ban on trading incentives. This means that on licensed EU platforms, TradFi perpetuals themselves face strict leverage restrictions, and launching options requires an additional path under MiFID.
The situation in the US market is fundamentally different. CFDs for retail clients are prohibited by Dodd-Frank, and American traders are directed toward exchange-cleared futures and options. Interactive Brokers and Tastytrade offer options under CFTC regulation. Crypto exchange TradFi perpetuals essentially operate in a regulatory vacuum - they target non-American users, are distributed through offshore structures, do not fall under the American regulatory framework for futures and options, and do not fully fall under EU CFD rules.
In total: "Who pays for the 'market gap'?"
One of the key arguments in favor of TradFi perpetuals is "access to US stocks without a traditional brokerage account." Binance emphasizes that its options products are physically settled, unlike "perpetual exposure linked to stocks." This wording itself acknowledges the structural shortcoming of perpetuals. They do not give shareholder rights, do not pay dividends, do not give voting rights, and, of course, do not provide the protective function of options.
When some unexpected event causes a sharp move in the underlying asset during non-working hours - whether it is an earnings leak, a geopolitical shock, or simply a liquidation cascade - the mark price mechanism and the liquidation engine of perpetuals will face an extreme test. Without the risk transmission and volatility pricing channel that the options market provides, this pressure will be fully absorbed by the exchange's insurance fund and the ADL mechanism.