Monolith and Ascend have partnered to build an end-to-end US solution for institutional commodity derivatives. The Monolith Ascend partnership splits the work between two firms. Monolith will operate an onchain venue for energy perpetual futures, and it is pursuing CFTC registration. Meanwhile, Ascend intends to clear that venue through an onchain tri-party model. Together, they want eligible real-world assets to work as collateral in hours instead of weeks. Additionally, the deal names the clearing partner Monolith left unnamed in August.
Monolith Runs the Market, Ascend Runs the Clearing
Monolith is pursuing registration with the CFTC as a Designated Contract Market. It is building an onchain institutional venue, and energy and commodities perpetual futures come first. These contracts settle in cash and carry no expiry date. As a result, traders can hold continuous exposure to energy benchmarks without rolling positions. Monolith says they complement dated futures, which still suit calendar-specific hedging. The company also points to leadership experience in fixed income, currencies and commodities at Citi, plus energy trading at Citadel.
Ascend covers the other half of the structure. It intends to clear the venue through an onchain tri-party clearing model. Together with its parent company, Ascend says it handles tokenization, collateralization, and clearing. Consequently, idle capital can become eligible collateral on Monolith. The two firms describe the result as an end-to-end architecture built from separate institutions.
Why Execution and Clearing Stay Separate
Ascend CEO Dennis O’Connell argues that execution and clearing are different problems. He says Ascend holds the collateral, extends credit against it, and carries accountability when a position moves against someone. In his words, that is clearing work. He adds that the design needed a regulated broker-dealer rather than a workaround built around one. That distinction matters because clearing concentrates default risk. A venue can match orders quickly, but someone still must absorb losses when a counterparty fails.
The partners also reject the idea that end-to-end means one company does everything. Instead, they want distinct institutions connected so assets, collateral, clearing and markets operate as one architecture. However, the announcement does not name Ascend’s parent company or its broker-dealer. Readers should watch for those details, because they define who carries the credit risk.
Execution and clearing are two different problems, and this architecture needs both. Monolith is solving execution across tailored commodity contracts. We hold the collateral, extend credit against it, and carry the accountability when a position moves against someone. That is clearing work, and it is why this had to be built with a regulated broker-dealer rather than around one.
Ascend CEO Dennis O’Connell
The Oil Cargo Test
The partners illustrate the problem with an eligible oil cargo in transit. The cargo already holds substantial economic value. Nevertheless, title, financing, insurance and settlement steps can keep the capital behind it hard to use. Monolith and Ascend say their system will make such assets usable as collateral through the clearing layer. They target collateralization in hours instead of weeks.
Monolith CEO Kaleb Nunn frames the goal in market terms. He says institutions no longer need another proof that an asset can be tokenized. Instead, they need a venue where those assets can be unlocked on the secondary market. The shared thesis is that all capital should be efficient collateral. Importantly, Monolith said in August that tokenization alone does not create legal rights or remove underlying risk. The legal and custody arrangements behind each cargo therefore still decide whether the collateral holds up.
The Regulatory Path Still Has Gaps
Today, Monolith does not hold a Designated Contract Market designation. Ascend also describes its role with the word “intends.” In other words, the venue cannot launch until regulators approve it. The announcement gives no launch date, funding figure, or list of eligible collateral.
The CFTC has opened a path for perpetuals, but it does not cover every product. On May 29, 2026, the agency approved the first US-listed perpetual, a cash-settled bitcoin contract on KalshiEX. According to Dechert, a related policy statement urged exchanges to submit perpetuals on non-digital commodities for prior review. Oil and gas contracts fall into that group. Meanwhile, Kalshi has asked the CFTC to approve a perpetual on WTI crude, with a 45-day decision window. Monolith will likely follow a similar review path.
Why the Timing Fits
Tokenized collateral is gaining institutional attention. Citi’s recent forecast puts tokenized assets near $5.5 trillion by 2030 in its base case. Citi calls collateral the first practical use case, because tokenization speeds up the movement of eligible assets. Today, tokenized financial assets total about $17 billion, and gold and commodities make up roughly 34% of that figure. Notably, Monolith aims at the physical side of that market.
The next milestones are concrete. First, watch for Monolith’s regulatory filings and its published collateral standards. Second, watch for the first physical cargo that moves through the full process. Until then, the partnership describes an architecture, not a live market. However, naming the clearing layer gives the design its first verifiable counterparty.
*Disclaimer: News content provided by Genfinity is intended solely for informational purposes. While we strive to deliver accurate and up-to-date information, we do not offer financial or legal advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with qualified professionals before making any financial or legal decisions. Genfinity disclaims any responsibility for actions taken based on the information presented in our articles. Our commitment is to share knowledge, foster discussion, and contribute to a better understanding of the topics covered in our articles. We advise our readers to exercise caution and diligence when seeking information or making decisions based on the content we provide.
