Kraken continues to accept Kaspa as collateral for margin trading, although the risk adjustment applied to KAS has increased substantially since the asset was first added. Kraken originally included KAS among nine new collateral currencies in its February 2025 announcement, while its current collateral schedule lists the proof-of-work asset with a 40% haircut. KAS therefore remains usable to secure eligible leveraged positions, but only 60% of its market value currently counts toward collateral.
The current setup differs from the parameters introduced at launch. Kraken initially assigned KAS a 20% haircut, meaning $1,000 worth of the asset contributed $800 toward collateral value. The exchange’s updated schedule now applies 40%, reducing that contribution to $600. The higher haircut represents a more conservative valuation of KAS within Kraken’s risk framework rather than a removal of the asset from margin trading. Haircuts can be adjusted administratively as market conditions and risk characteristics change.
KAS Collateral and KAS Perpetuals Serve Different Functions
Kraken allows collateral currencies to support margin positions even when the collateral asset is different from the asset being traded. A trader holding KAS can therefore retain that exposure while using its discounted collateral value to support an eligible margin position in another market. The underlying KAS remains reserved as collateral while the position is open and cannot simultaneously be withdrawn or freely exchanged.
The same 40% haircut currently appears in Kraken’s multi-collateral derivatives schedule. However, KAS being accepted as derivatives collateral is separate from the existence of the KAS/USD perpetual contract. The latter has traded since January 9, 2024 and currently sits in Margin Class D, where maximum leverage begins at 20x for the smallest position tier before margin requirements increase as exposure grows.
That distinction matters because “20x KAS” does not mean every position backed by KAS can automatically obtain 20x leverage. Leverage limits are determined by the contract and position-size risk schedule, while the haircut determines how much of a user’s KAS balance contributes to collateral equity. The two controls address different parts of Kraken’s margin-risk system.
Kraken has increasingly broadened the range of assets usable inside its institutional and leveraged trading infrastructure. Payward and Franklin Templeton are integrating tokenized money-market assets into Kraken’s institutional stack, while Kraken Institutional has also added tokenized credit products such as JAAA to qualified custody. Those integrations extend collateral infrastructure beyond conventional cryptocurrencies, although their eligibility and risk parameters differ from KAS.
Exchanges Expand Collateral Without Eliminating Risk Controls
The broader market is moving toward more diverse margin assets. Binance, for example, has made selected tokenized equities eligible for Cross Margin and Portfolio Margin, while regulated U.S. derivatives markets have explored digital assets as collateral under a CFTC pilot. Expanding collateral eligibility can increase capital flexibility, but exchanges continue applying haircuts, position limits and liquidation rules to account for volatility and liquidity differences.
For Kaspa holders, the current Kraken framework is therefore not a new listing but an evolution of an existing one. KAS remains usable across Kraken’s margin and multi-collateral derivatives infrastructure, but its present 40% haircut means substantially less of its nominal value contributes to margin equity than when support began in 2025. That risk adjustment, rather than the original collateral listing, is the more relevant current parameter for leveraged users.
Emma Lawson writes about the pressure points where crypto meets the outside world: regulation, exchanges, macro policy, tokenized assets and geopolitical risk. From the US, she follows the decisions and events that can change how capital moves, how platforms operate and how digital assets are treated by institutions.
Her work is direct and evidence-led. Emma is less interested in legal theatre than in practical consequences: what changed, who is affected, which risks are real and where the market may be overreacting. She brings a steady voice to complex stories, especially when regulation, infrastructure and global markets start pulling in the same direction.