Source publication: November 10, 2026, at 12:52:45 UTC+8. Written by Four Pillars and translated into Chinese by TechFlow. The following summarizes the supplied report; its claims have not been independently verified here.
US crypto legislation faces a tougher path after the midterm elections, but agency rulemaking and regulated derivatives could continue advancing, according to Four Pillars’ weekly report. Elsewhere, the report examines a major Binance security breach and Hyperliquid’s first-half results—two stories where headline figures need careful context.
A congressional roadblock, not necessarily a policy reversal
The report says Democrats secured control of both chambers in the November 3 US midterm elections, flipping at least seven Senate seats and gaining more than 20 House seats. The new Congress takes office in January 2027.
Four Pillars argues that this weakens the prospects for comprehensive digital-asset legislation, particularly the CLARITY Act, which seeks to establish a federal market-structure framework and clarify SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. According to the report, the bill passed the House in July 2025 but stalled in a September 2025 Senate procedural vote of 49–50.
Disagreements over stablecoin rewards, DeFi developer liability and government officials’ conflicts of interest had already impeded negotiations. The researchers expect Democratic control to bring greater scrutiny of the Trump family’s crypto interests, including World Liberty Financial, USD1 and the TRUMP memecoin. Those concerns are potential conflicts—not findings that misconduct occurred.
The report distinguishes legislative gridlock from agency action:
- In August 2026, the SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, including targeted registration exemptions and a conditional safe harbor related to investment-contract classification.
- In October, the CFTC began rulemaking for Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Crypto Asset Markets (CAM), aimed at retail-facing crypto commodity trading.
Four Pillars’ interpretation is that agency rules could become the main route toward regulatory clarity. The limitation: administrative rules remain constrained by existing statutory authority and are more exposed than legislation to changes in leadership or administration. Proposals also still need to become final rules before their practical effects can be assessed.
Stock perpetuals attract platforms—and a legal challenge
According to the report, the CFTC cleared a path on November 3 for regulated US exchanges to list perpetual futures tied to individual stocks. Eligible venues would need CFTC licensing and SEC registration for securities-futures trading.
Perpetuals have no fixed expiry and provide price exposure without ownership of the underlying shares. The report says these contracts fall under the joint SEC–CFTC securities-futures framework established by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
It describes several responses:
- Kalshi reportedly launched regulated single-stock perpetuals on November 5, covering more than 50 companies, including Nvidia, Meta and Palantir, and recording over $300 million in early trading volume.
- Payward, Kraken’s parent, was preparing a launch through Bitnomial, initially targeting 10 major US stocks.
- Coinbase Derivatives and a Crypto.com-affiliated exchange were also pursuing similar products.
The report also says ICE, the New York Stock Exchange’s parent, announced an investment and partnership with Hyperliquid-based Trade[XYZ] on October 29. Their proposed US-regulated trading and clearing infrastructure remained subject to approval. Separately, Hyperliquid Strategies was seeking futures commission merchant registration to facilitate compliant access to Hyperliquid markets.
Regulatory acceptance of a product is not blanket permission for offshore platforms to serve US customers. Four Pillars notes that registration, custody, surveillance and clearing requirements still apply. It also reports that an industry coalition including Cboe and Citadel Securities filed a lawsuit challenging the CFTC’s statutory authority to approve the contracts.
The researchers see an opportunity for onchain infrastructure, including Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets, but that remains an assessment—not proof of future adoption or token returns.
Binance breach: recovery does not erase infrastructure risk
The report says Binance hot wallets across 10 blockchains were compromised beginning at 5:04 a.m. on October 30, 2026, with $6.36 billion stolen, mostly within roughly 20 minutes. It attributes the attack to TraderTraitor based on an FBI attribution and says the compromise involved internal signing infrastructure rather than a single private key.
According to the account:
- Tether and Circle froze approximately $2.4 billion in stolen stablecoins within an hour.
- Subsequent interventions brought the amount frozen or recovered to more than $2.8 billion.
- Binance assembled $6.34 billion without external borrowing to fund full compensation.
- Withdrawals reopened in phases from November 1. Binance’s own figures put first-day net outflows at approximately 2.1% of total assets.
Four Pillars argues that Binance’s financial resources were crucial to containing the fallout; smaller exchanges might not withstand a comparable shock.
The report says roughly 90% of funds leaving Binance after withdrawals resumed did not move to other top-10 centralized exchanges. It interprets this as increased interest in self-custody, although that destination figure alone does not establish where all the money went. It also cites Ledger device tampering and a malicious Trust Wallet update as reminders that personal wallets carry their own supply-chain and security risks.
Hyperliquid: revenue resilience, uneven diversification
A first-half 2026 report by the Hyperliquid Research Collective, jointly initiated by GLC Research and Four Pillars, puts Hyperliquid’s protocol revenue at $351 million, up 6.4% year over year but down 38% from the record second half of 2025.
June revenue reached $71 million, the strongest month since November 2025. The protocol spent $288 million on HYPE buybacks during the half. Over the same period, HYPE rose 155%, while bitcoin fell 33%—price performance that should be distinguished from operating results.
HIP-3 generated $324 billion in trading volume, or 25.1% of platform volume, rising to 32.0% in the second quarter. Yet it contributed only 7.4% of protocol revenue under subsidized fee pricing, while native crypto perpetuals supplied 85.6%. Concentration was also substantial: Trade[XYZ] accounted for 97% of HIP-3 volume in June.
The report identifies a possible additional buyback funding source through USDC reserve income. HyperEVM ended the period with $5.6 billion in stablecoins, 96% of it USDC. Under AQAv2, approximately 90% of reserve interest after cost adjustments would go to the Assistance Fund.
The estimated annual contribution of $135 million–$200 million was not recognized as first-half revenue. Actual distributions remained unconfirmed at publication and depended on balances, interest rates and the final effective sharing ratio.
On supply, the report says three US spot ETFs had accumulated $309 million in net inflows by June 30. ETFs, listed treasury companies and the Assistance Fund collectively held about 82 million HYPE, or 8.2% of total supply. Team members claimed just 4.7% of scheduled unlocks during the half, but $4.3 billion in vested, unclaimed allocations remained a potential supply overhang.
Other developments in the roundup
The report’s Korean exchange analysis says the share of newly listed won trading pairs classified as “Korea-only” on Upbit and Bithumb fell from 85% in 2019 to 9% in 2024, before reaching 18% in 2026.
Other brief items included NEAR approving a reduction in its token-issuance inflation ceiling to 1.6%; Samsung Wallet introducing Solana-based USDC accounts for US Galaxy users; and Aave Labs acquiring financial-engineering team Avon.
The roundup also notes that Binance’s CFO stepped down nine days after the reported breach. Its co-CEO said the transition had been planned six months earlier; the timing alone does not establish a connection.
Across these stories, the important distinctions are between proposals and final approvals, trading volume and revenue, recovery efforts and underlying security, and projected income and money actually received.