Source publication: November 10, 2026, at 12:52:45 UTC+8. This retrospective summarizes reporting and analysis attributed to Four Pillars, translated and published by TechFlow; the claims below are presented in that source’s reporting context.
The Four Pillars weekly review connects three developments at the centralized–decentralized finance boundary: a reported opening for regulated U.S. single-stock perpetual futures, Binance’s response to a major custody breach, and Hyperliquid’s expanding role in multi-asset trading. Across them, the central distinction is between trading infrastructure, control over customer assets and the obligations of regulated intermediaries.
U.S. single-stock perpetuals: access still depends on regulated intermediaries
According to the review, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission cleared a path on November 3 for single-stock perpetual futures to trade on U.S.-regulated exchanges. Eligible CFTC-licensed exchanges would also need the relevant securities-futures registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The contracts provide exposure to individual stocks without requiring traders to own the underlying shares and have no fixed expiration date. The source says they fall within the legal category of security futures under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, placing them under joint SEC–CFTC oversight.
The review reports several responses:
- Kalshi launched on November 5, initially covering more than 50 companies, including Nvidia, Meta and Palantir, and recorded more than $300 million in early trading volume.
- Payward, Kraken’s parent, was preparing an offering through its regulated exchange Bitnomial, initially targeting 10 major U.S. stocks.
- Coinbase Derivatives and an exchange affiliated with Crypto.com were also pursuing similar listings.
The source also reports that Intercontinental Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange’s parent, announced a strategic investment and partnership with Hyperliquid-based Trade[XYZ] on October 29. The proposed collaboration would use Hyperliquid technology to develop a U.S.-regulated trading venue and clearing infrastructure.
Separately, listed HYPE holder Hyperliquid Strategies was seeking registration as a futures commission merchant. Both that initiative and the ICE–Trade[XYZ] plans remained subject to regulatory approval.
Acceptance of a contract structure is not blanket authorization for an on-chain platform to serve U.S. customers. Four Pillars emphasizes that exchange registration, custody, surveillance and clearing requirements would still apply. An industry coalition including Cboe and Citadel Securities had also sued to challenge the CFTC’s statutory authority to permit the contracts under the existing framework.
Congressional gridlock versus agency rulemaking
The review reports that Democrats won control of both chambers in the November 3 U.S. midterm elections, flipping at least seven Senate seats and gaining more than 20 House seats. The new Congress was scheduled to take office in January 2027.
Four Pillars argues that this would weaken the prospects for comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation, rather than necessarily reverse all U.S. crypto policy. It says the CLARITY Act passed the House in July 2025 but failed to advance after a 49–50 Senate procedural vote that September. Negotiations had stalled over stablecoin rewards, DeFi developer liability and conflict-of-interest provisions.
The researchers expected increased scrutiny of the Trump family’s crypto interests, including World Liberty Financial, USD1 and the TRUMP meme token. That was a forecast about congressional priorities, not a finding that those interests had influenced policy.
Meanwhile, the source describes continuing agency initiatives: an SEC Regulation Crypto Assets proposal in August, followed by CFTC rulemaking on Crypto Asset Trading and Crypto Asset Markets in October. Four Pillars identifies agency rules as a possible route to greater regulatory clarity, while noting their exposure to leadership changes and the limits of existing statutory authority.
Binance: a custody breach and an intervention-dependent recovery
The review’s Binance account places the compromise in the exchange’s internal signing infrastructure, rather than a single private key. It reports that hot wallets across 10 blockchains were breached beginning at 05:04 on October 30, 2026, with $6.36 billion stolen, mostly within approximately 20 minutes. The source attributes the FBI’s identification of the attackers to North Korea’s TraderTraitor group.
Recovery depended partly on powers held by other organizations. According to the review:
- Tether and Circle froze approximately $2.4 billion in stolen stablecoins within an hour.
- Subsequent interventions by the Arbitrum Security Council and token projects brought frozen or recovered assets above $2.8 billion.
- Binance raised $6.34 billion internally, without external borrowing, which the review describes as funding full compensation.
The source says withdrawals reopened in phases from November 1. Binance’s own figures put first-day net outflows at approximately 2.1% of total assets. The review also references proof-of-reserves disclosures, but does not provide a corresponding liabilities assessment or audit conclusion.
Four Pillars argues that Binance’s financial resources were important to containing the fallout and that a smaller exchange facing a comparable shock would be more vulnerable to a run. It reports that roughly 90% of funds leaving Binance did not move to another top-10 centralized exchange, interpreting this as stronger demand for self-custody. It nevertheless cautions that personal wallets also face risks, citing Ledger device tampering and a malicious Trust Wallet update.
Hyperliquid: broader trading activity, uneven revenue contribution
The H1 2026 report by the Hyperliquid Research Collective, jointly established by GLC Research and Four Pillars, records $351 million in protocol revenue, up 6.4% year over year but down 38% from H2 2025. June revenue reached $71 million, while first-half HYPE buybacks totaled $288 million.
HIP-3 facilitated $324 billion in volume, or 25.1% of platform volume, rising to 32.0% in the second quarter. Yet it generated only 7.4% of protocol revenue under subsidized fee pricing; native crypto perpetuals contributed 85.6%. Deployment was also concentrated: Trade[XYZ] accounted for 97% of HIP-3 volume in June.
The report identifies a potential additional buyback funding source in USDC reserve interest. HyperEVM ended the period with $5.6 billion in stablecoin supply, 96% of it USDC. Under the described AQAv2 arrangement, approximately 90% of reserve interest after cost adjustments would go to the Assistance Fund.
Estimated annual contributions of $135 million–$200 million depended on prevailing rates and stablecoin balances. Crucially, the report had not recognized that income in its first-half figures, and actual distributions remained undetermined at publication.
Supply considerations also remained material. The report puts combined ETF, listed treasury-company and Assistance Fund holdings at approximately 82 million HYPE, or 8.2% of total supply. Although the team claimed only 4.7% of its scheduled first-half unlocks, $4.3 billion in vested but unclaimed allocations remained a potential source of supply pressure.
Original article: Four Pillars weekly review, translated by TechFlow