Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Julie Brown, and I'm a homemaker from Texas. I'm writing to you about the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been actively trading on platforms like Kalshi, and I want to share why I strongly support well-regulated prediction markets and why I believe the CFTC should adopt proportionate rules rather than broad restrictions.
As someone managing a household budget, I find prediction markets incredibly useful. They're not just a hobby; they give me insights I can't get from polls or news pundits. I've seen firsthand how these markets often predict outcomes, like election results or economic shifts, more accurately than so-called experts. That information helps me make better decisions for my family, whether it's planning around potential tax changes or inflation spikes. Beyond that, I use these markets to hedge personal financial risks. For example, trading on events like Federal Reserve decisions helps me offset worries about mortgage rate changes affecting our budget. This isn't gambling to me. It takes research and real-world judgment, much like investing in stocks or mutual funds. Classifying event contracts as "gaming" feels wrong when they serve such clear economic purposes.
I'm also concerned about access. I value the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets like Kalshi. These platforms are safe and transparent, unlike unregulated offshore sites where people might turn if the CFTC over-restricts or bans these markets. The US should be leading in financial innovation, not pushing activity to less safe places or letting other countries take the lead. Plus, I've noticed that informed traders actually improve the accuracy of these markets. Their participation benefits everyone by making prices reflect reality better, as asked in your questions 29 to 32 about inside information and price discovery.
I appreciate that the CFTC is looking at risks like manipulation or insider trading, as raised in questions 1 to 6 on core principles. But I believe the answer is targeted regulation, not categorical bans. You already have tools to address bad actors, and using those effectively would protect participants without shutting down something so valuable. On a side note, I think payout structures could be improved. Starting at a 2x payout feels more logical to me when we're putting real money into these markets, and I hope that's considered in your cost-benefit analysis from questions 33 to 40.
Prediction markets matter to people like me. They help us hedge risks, stay informed, and participate in a fair, regulated space. I urge you to support proportionate rules that address specific concerns without over-restricting or banning these markets. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Julie Brown
