Invest1 publisher3 min readPublished
Cboe puts a 404% number on the gap between perps and 0DTE options
A Cboe paper says a 0.94% index slip paid 9.4% on a 10x short perpetual future and 404% on an at-the-money 0DTE put. The CFTC's Kalshi approval makes that distinction a regulatory question.
The Investor · Invest desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- Cboe's Market Intelligence team released a research paper on July 14, 2026, titled "Crossed Wires: Separating Perception from Reality," arguing perpetual futures and 0DTE options are fundamentally different in structure, risk profile and real-world application.
- On May 29, 2026, the CFTC approved Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contracts, bringing crypto-native perpetual futures into the regulated US derivatives landscape for the first time.
- Around the Kalshi approval, CFTC Chair Selig reportedly suggested that perpetual futures and 0DTE options share enough similarities to be considered comparable products.
- Perpetual futures carry a linear payoff: a 5% adverse move in the underlying costs 5% of notional exposure. They have no expiration date, and risk runs in both directions with no ceiling and no floor.
- 0DTE options expire within a single trading day and offer capped risk: a put buyer can never lose more than the premium paid, and the worst case is known at entry.
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
Cboe's Market Intelligence team published a paper on July 14, 2026, titled "Crossed Wires: Separating Perception from Reality," arguing that perpetual futures and zero-days-to-expiration options differ fundamentally in structure, risk profile and application [1]. The timing is not accidental: the CFTC approved Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contracts on May 29, 2026, bringing crypto-native perps into the regulated US derivatives market for the first time [2], and around that approval CFTC Chair Selig reportedly suggested the two instruments were similar enough to be treated as comparable [3].
The paper's central exhibit is a case study from April 21, 2026, when the S&P 500 fell 0.94% intraday [7]. Two positions with equivalent notional exposure were compared: a 10x leveraged short perpetual future returned +9.4%, while an at-the-money SPX 0DTE put bought at the open returned +404% [8]. That is roughly a 43-fold difference in outcome from the same market move [1], a spread of about 395 percentage points [3]. The perp result is simply arithmetic: 0.94% times ten leverage is 9.4%, which is what a linear payoff is supposed to produce [2]. A perpetual future has no expiration and moves one-for-one with the underlying, up and down, without a ceiling or a floor [4]. The option result comes from gamma acceleration as a contract crosses from out-of-the-money to in-the-money intraday, convexity that a linear instrument cannot reproduce [9].
Two cautions on reading that gap. The positions were matched on notional exposure [8], which means the two percentages rest on different denominators: option premium in one case, posted margin in the other [5]. And convexity is bought, not given. The buyer's loss is capped at the premium and known at entry [5], which also means the worst case is losing all of it when the move does not arrive [4]. Cboe says roughly 92% of SPX 0DTE activity uses these capped-risk structures [6], and characterises the primary uses as hedging existing exposure and collecting premium [11], versus perps as speculative and leverage tools carrying symmetric, uncapped risk that can liquidate a position within minutes [10].
That is where the regulatory point bites. A 0DTE put buyer can lose the premium and nothing more; a leveraged perp holder can lose the entire margin and potentially more, depending on the platform's liquidation mechanics [13]. Margin and liquidation are risks perps carry and 0DTE structurally avoids [13]. The scale argument is also on Cboe's side: as of Q2 2026, 0DTE contracts were over 60% of typical SPX options volume, with average daily notional peaking at $2.3 trillion [12].
Cboe's motive is visible. It runs the largest US options exchange and is the home of SPX options, so it has a commercial interest in framing its flagship product as the more sophisticated risk-management tool [14].
What to watch: whether the comparability framing attributed to Selig [3] shows up in the margin, disclosure or suitability treatment applied to the next perp listings after Kalshi's [2], and whether the 0DTE share of SPX volume holds above 60% once regulated perps compete for the same short-dated directional flow [12].