OG.com Gets SEC Nod for Single-Stock Futures in the US
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has acknowledged OG.com's Form 1-N filing, formally clearing the platform to list single-stock futures in the United States. Announced by Crypto.com co-founder and CEO Kris Marszalek on 17 September 2026, the development is one of the clearest signs yet that the boundary between crypto derivatives and traditional capital markets is dissolving in a regulated, supervised way. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs managing digital asset books, this is not a distant market-structure story: it signals a new instrument class that will land on client balance sheets sooner than many practices are ready for.
What the SEC Acknowledgement Actually Means
A Form 1-N is the registration mechanism through which an exchange seeking to operate as a national securities exchange for trading futures products notifies the SEC. Acknowledgement is distinct from full approval in the traditional sense, but it carries real legal weight: it clears the regulatory hurdle that allows the platform to list and trade these products in the US market.
The filing entity and its structure
OG.com operates through its US legal entity, North American Derivatives Exchange. That entity submitted the Form 1-N to the SEC on Monday, and the acknowledgement followed within the same week. Marszalek described the project as a collaboration with both the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), reflecting the dual-regulator complexity that attaches to single-stock futures in the US: the products sit at the intersection of securities law (SEC jurisdiction) and commodity derivatives law (CFTC jurisdiction).
What "single-stock perpetual futures" means in practice
Marszalek framed the product as one that combines the structural innovations of digital asset markets with US capital markets. Single-stock perpetual futures, unlike their traditional dated counterparts, have no expiry date. They use a funding-rate mechanism, borrowed from crypto perpetual swaps, to keep the contract price anchored to the underlying equity's spot price. The result is a hybrid instrument: its reference asset is a listed equity, but its settlement mechanics and margining conventions are closer to crypto derivatives than to exchange-traded options or standard equity futures.
Understanding how the CLARITY Act's Senate failure reshaped SEC and CFTC rulemaking provides useful context here, because the dual-agency coordination that OG.com is navigating is precisely the jurisdictional ambiguity that the Act was meant to resolve.
Regulatory Context: A Broader Trend Taking Shape
OG.com is not operating in isolation. Other platforms have moved in a similar direction, and the pattern is becoming consistent enough to treat as a structural shift rather than a series of isolated announcements.
Kraken and the London Stock Exchange
Kraken reportedly reached an agreement with the London Stock Exchange to offer tokenized UK equities with extended trading hours, with availability targeted from 2027. The model differs from OG.com's perpetual futures approach, using tokenization of the underlying stock rather than a derivative wrapper, but both aim at the same outcome: giving crypto-native users access to equity exposure through digital-asset infrastructure.
Other perpetual futures launches
A separate crypto exchange launched single-stock perpetual futures for non-US traders earlier in 2026, following its own entry into regulated equity-access products for US users in February. Taken together, these moves reflect a deliberate industry strategy to expand addressable markets by bridging the two largest pools of retail and institutional trading activity.
The regulatory momentum is also being shaped by legislative developments. Tracking what the House Ways and Means digital asset tax bill means for firms is relevant here, because how gains on hybrid instruments like single-stock perps are ultimately taxed at the federal level remains an open question that accounting teams will need to monitor.
Accounting and Audit Implications
The emergence of regulated single-stock perpetual futures issued through crypto infrastructure creates classification and measurement challenges that most accounting practices have not yet had to resolve for client portfolios. The issues break down across a few key dimensions.
Instrument classification under US GAAP and IFRS
A single-stock perpetual futures contract written by a registered national securities exchange and settled in digital assets is likely to be treated as a derivative under both ASC 815 (US GAAP) and IFRS 9. That triggers fair value measurement with changes recognised in profit or loss unless hedge accounting is elected and documented. However, the perpetual structure complicates the standard derivative analysis: there is no fixed maturity date, and the funding-rate payments that flow between long and short holders resemble periodic settlement rather than interest. Auditors will need to assess whether those payments are presented gross or net, and whether the instrument meets the definition of a financial liability or an equity instrument from the issuer's perspective.
Fair value measurement and pricing inputs
Under the fair value hierarchy, single-stock perps traded on a registered exchange would ordinarily qualify as Level 1 inputs if there is sufficient market depth and observable pricing. In practice, a newly launched product may lack the liquidity to support that classification in early periods, pushing the measurement to Level 2 or Level 3 and requiring firms to document the valuation methodology applied. Crypto bookkeeping software and digital asset accounting software that currently handles spot and dated-futures positions may need configuration updates to capture funding-rate accruals, margin requirements, and the daily mark-to-market for these instruments correctly.
Margin and collateral accounting
Perpetual futures are margined products. Collateral posted to support open positions, whether in fiat or in digital assets, needs to be segregated correctly on the balance sheet and evaluated for any associated impairment or fair value adjustments if the collateral is itself a crypto asset. For CFOs, the interaction between margin calls on equity-referencing perps and any crypto collateral posted creates a liquidity risk profile that treasury policies may not currently contemplate.
Tax classification uncertainty
The IRS has not issued specific guidance on single-stock perpetual futures settled through crypto-native infrastructure. The nearest analogues are regulated futures contracts under Section 1256, which benefit from 60/40 capital gains treatment and mark-to-market rules at year end. Whether a single-stock perp listed on a registered national securities exchange qualifies as a Section 1256 contract will depend on how the IRS characterises the product, and that determination could materially affect the after-tax return calculation for both institutional and individual holders. Firms advising clients on these products should flag the uncertainty explicitly and document the tax position taken.
What Firms Should Do Now
The SEC acknowledgement is dated, products are not yet trading, and the final rulebook for dual-registration under the SEC and CFTC is still being worked through. That window is the right time for accounting and compliance teams to act, not after the first client trade is booked.
Review your instrument taxonomy
Check whether your chart of accounts and your digital asset accounting software can accommodate a perpetual futures contract that references an equity, settles through crypto infrastructure, and carries ongoing funding-rate payments. If the answer is no, begin scoping the required configuration now.
Update audit programmes and risk assessments
If any audit client operates in crypto derivatives, add single-stock perps to the next risk assessment cycle. The dual-jurisdiction structure, novel instrument mechanics, and pricing uncertainty all represent elevated inherent risk that needs to be reflected in audit planning before positions appear on the balance sheet.
Engage on tax position early
Open a dialogue with clients about the Section 1256 question before the products are live. A documented, defensible tax position established before trading begins is far easier to sustain than a retrospective analysis prepared under audit pressure.
Monitor SEC and CFTC rulemaking
The dual-regulator coordination that Marszalek referenced is ongoing. Watch for any joint SEC/CFTC guidance on the registration and ongoing compliance obligations for single-stock futures listed on crypto-adjacent exchanges, and track whether CFTC adds these products to its designated contract market framework. Both agencies have signalled a more active rulemaking posture in the post-CLARITY Act environment, and product-specific guidance could arrive with limited notice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Form 1-N and what does SEC acknowledgement mean?
Form 1-N is the filing through which an exchange registers as a national securities exchange for trading futures products under the Securities Exchange Act. SEC acknowledgement means the regulator has received and processed the filing, clearing the exchange to operate in that capacity. It is distinct from a broader exchange registration approval and specifically covers the futures products scope.
Are single-stock perpetual futures the same as standard equity futures?
No. Standard single-stock futures have a fixed expiry date and settle at that point. Perpetual futures have no expiry: they use a recurring funding-rate mechanism to keep the contract price close to the underlying stock's spot price. The mechanics are borrowed from crypto perpetual swap markets and differ materially from exchange-traded equity options or standard futures in how margin, settlement, and ongoing payments are structured.
How should auditors classify these instruments under US GAAP?
They are likely to be derivatives under ASC 815, requiring fair value measurement with changes through profit or loss unless hedge accounting applies. The perpetual structure and funding-rate payments require specific analysis of how those cash flows are presented, and early-stage liquidity may push fair value measurement below Level 1 in the hierarchy, requiring detailed valuation documentation.
Does Section 1256 apply to single-stock perpetual futures listed on a registered exchange?
This is unresolved. Section 1256 covers regulated futures contracts and provides 60/40 capital gains treatment plus year-end mark-to-market. Whether a single-stock perp qualifies depends on IRS characterisation that has not yet been provided. Firms should document the tax position taken and monitor IRS guidance closely.
What should CFOs do if a client starts trading these products before clear guidance arrives?
Apply the closest analogue under current GAAP or IFRS, document the accounting policy and the rationale thoroughly, flag the unresolved tax classification in any relevant disclosures, and establish a process to restate or adjust if definitive regulatory or IRS guidance differs from the position taken. Proactive disclosure of the uncertainty is preferable to a silent policy that later requires restatement.
Source: Cointelegraph