Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Connor Mraz, a finance professional from New York, and I’m writing to express my strong support for proportionate regulation of prediction markets in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). As someone who actively trades on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, I’ve seen firsthand the value these markets provide, and I believe the CFTC has a critical opportunity to foster innovation while protecting consumers through thoughtful regulation.
Prediction markets are not just a niche interest for me—they’re a practical tool for hedging real financial risks. In my line of work, I’m constantly assessing how political and economic events could impact markets, taxes, or business conditions. Trading on platforms like Kalshi allows me to offset some of that uncertainty, whether it’s an election outcome affecting policy or a Federal Reserve decision impacting rates. This isn’t gambling; it’s a calculated way to manage exposure, much like trading futures or options. I also believe these markets democratize access to valuable information—prices often reflect insights that polls and pundits miss, benefiting everyone, not just traders.
However, I’m deeply concerned about the alternative if the CFTC over-restricts or bans certain event contracts. Banning or overly limiting these markets won’t eliminate demand—it will push activity to unregulated offshore platforms where there’s no consumer protection, no oversight, and no accountability.
Importantly, the gambling lobby, which often opposes prediction markets, skims 10% or more per trade on their platforms. Peer-to-peer trading on regulated markets is far more pro-consumer and should be federally regulated.
I urge the CFTC to consider these points in relation to Questions 7-14 on balancing innovation and consumer protection, and Questions 23-28 on procedural aspects of public interest determinations. Regulation should be targeted and proportionate, addressing specific risks like manipulation or insider trading—issues the CFTC already has tools to combat—rather than imposing broad categorical bans. On the topic of U.S. competitiveness (relevant to Questions 33-40 on costs and benefits), we should be leading in financial innovation, not ceding ground to other countries by driving legitimate activity offshore.
I’m not blind to the risks. Manipulation and insider trading are real concerns, but they’re already illegal and enforceable under existing laws. Shutting down entire markets to stop a few bad actors punishes the majority who use them responsibly. Instead, I ask the CFTC to craft rules that protect consumers while preserving access to these valuable tools for hedging and price discovery.
Thank you for considering my perspective. I strongly support well-regulated prediction markets and urge the Commission to avoid over-restrictive measures that would harm innovation and consumer choice.
Sincerely,
Connor Mraz
