United States Compute Derivatives Market, 2026-2031: The Settlement-Reference Contest

Six CFTC-regulated venues, three price administrators, and a $20M infrastructure layer forecast to grow at 45% CAGR.

Between March and September 2026 the United States acquired a compute derivatives market: six CFTC-regulated venues entered compute in seven months. The contest this market is running is over the settlement reference, not the venue. The three price administrators all six depend on do not measure one quantity - two publish spot rental prices on different clocks, the third a one-year rental term - so the contracts they support are not contracts on the same underlying. This report sizes the layer's own revenue, from index licensing, venue fees and clearing fees rather than the far larger GPU rental cash market, at $20 million for 2026. It is forecast to grow at a 45% compound annual rate to $128 million by 2031 and $822 million by 2036, within wide and judgemental intervals. The report runs to 60 pages, with 14 charts, 9 data tables, two segmentation views, three scenarios and a ten-year forecast horizon. Its fourteen company profiles include the operators of the six venues - CME Group, Intercontinental Exchange, Nodal Exchange, Kalshi, Polymarket US and Architect Financial Technologies - the three administrators, and Liquid Compute, which is covered but sits outside the six-venue census.

Report Highlights:

• Market Sizing with Stated Uncertainty: The 2026 base weights equally a bottom-up estimate from the three price administrators and an analogue transfer from listed power derivatives; because the analogue is built on the bottom-up figure, the two methods do not corroborate each other. The forecast intervals are judgemental rather than derived.
• A Venue Census from the Regulator's Registers: Venue capacity was never the scarce input: every one of the six CFTC-regulated venues now in compute held its designation before compute was a product category.
• The Incumbent the Exchanges Followed: Kalshi, not the futures exchanges, is the incumbent: the first US-regulated compute derivative traded on its venue in March 2026, and no compute futures contract has followed it. CME Group's contracts did not launch on their announced date: the CFTC has extended its review of them to 2026-11-09.
• Where the Revenue Is Today: Index administration is the whole of the market's revenue today: the venue and clearing fees inside the $20 million base-year estimate are forecast rather than earned, because no compute futures contract has yet traded. The revenue that exists is licensing revenue, earned by three private companies, none of which is an exchange, and the report sizes each stage of the value chain separately.
• A Falsification Test Stated in Advance: None of the six venues has announced an intention to settle against a reference it owns. The test stays one of intention until a compute futures contract trades; the next decision point is 2026-11-09, when the CFTC's extended review of CME Group's contracts ends.
• The Hedging Evidence, Tested: The evidence that these contracts hedge anything is one simulation, of a different instrument. It reports a 62% to 78% reduction in enterprise compute cost volatility, modelled for token futures rather than GPU-hour futures across the paper's three demand scenarios, and that range does not reproduce from the paper's own inputs, which convert to 53% to 70% on a standard-deviation measure.

This report will provide answers to the following questions:

• How large is the US compute derivatives infrastructure layer in 2026, and how fast could it grow to 2031 and 2036?
• Which CFTC-regulated venues have entered compute, and when did each obtain its designation?
• Which price administrators do the six venues settle against, and do their indexes measure the same quantity?
• Where does the layer's revenue come from today, and which value-chain stage is forecast to grow fastest?
• Has any venue announced an intention to settle against a reference it owns, and what changes once contracts trade?
• What evidence shows that compute futures hedge compute costs, and how far can it be relied on?
• What would decide whether compute settles on one benchmark or stays split across three references?

Methodology

Our analysis originates from primary research - direct interviews with executives, operators, and technical practitioners actively shaping these markets. This fieldwork provides access to perspective and data not available in secondary sources: what decision-makers are observing in real time, the problems driving purchasing behavior, and where they see value migrating. Every data point and claim undergoes human verification before inclusion; figures that cannot be substantiated or traced to credible sources are excluded.

Market sizing triangulates across multiple independent estimation methods, producing investment-grade estimates with assumptions documented explicitly so readers can evaluate the underlying logic, stress-test key inputs, and defend the numbers in boardrooms and diligence processes. We validate quantitative claims against peer-reviewed research, regulatory filings, and observable market signals - including systematic searches for contradicting evidence. Where methods produce divergent estimates, we investigate the source of variance and report ranges rather than false precision. Forecasts are constructed through scenario modeling anchored to base rates from comparable markets. (While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, forward-looking statements reflect current expectations and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that may cause actual results to differ materially.)

The result is thesis-driven analysis that delivers clear conclusions: specific enough to cite, transparent enough to verify, comprehensive enough to satisfy diligence requirements, and rigorous enough to withstand the follow-up question.

Target Audience

• AI labs, hyperscalers and cloud providers that buy or sell GPU compute and are weighing whether to hedge it
• Lenders and investors financing GPU and data centre capacity
• Exchanges, clearing houses and market operators evaluating compute contracts
• Index and benchmark administrators, and the data providers that supply them
• Trading firms and market makers preparing to provide liquidity in compute futures
• Regulators, policy analysts and counsel following the CFTC's compute derivatives proceedings