Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Marco Antonio Ledesma, and I'm a regular citizen from Texas writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I'm new to prediction markets, but I strongly support their existence under fair and reasonable regulation. I believe they offer unique value, and I want to see the CFTC approach this with a balanced perspective.
As someone who values personal freedom, I think it's important that everyday people like me have the chance to participate in legal, regulated markets. Prediction markets aren't just for big institutions or Wall Street insiders. They give regular folks a way to engage with real-world events, make informed decisions, and even protect themselves from financial risks tied to things like elections or economic shifts. I don't see this as gambling. It's more like investing in stocks, where research and judgment play a big role. Classifying event contracts as "gaming" feels wrong to me because they serve a real economic purpose, whether it's hedging a risk or figuring out what might happen based on crowd wisdom.
I'm also worried about what happens if these markets get banned or overly restricted. I've read about platforms like Kalshi, which operate under CFTC oversight, and that kind of regulation seems like the right way to protect consumers. If we push too hard with rules or outright bans, people will just turn to offshore platforms with no oversight at all. Thats not safer for anyone. I'd rather see the CFTC keep activity here in the US, under your watch, where there are rules to follow and protections in place. This also ties into US competitiveness. We should be leading the way in financial innovation, not letting other countries take over because were too strict.
Looking at some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to touch on a couple that stand out to me. On Question 7, about balancing innovation and consumer protection, I think the answer is clear regulation, not prohibition. And on Question 15, regarding what counts as "gaming," I urge you to define it narrowly so legitimate event contracts aren't swept up in a category that doesn't fit. Targeted rules to address specific risks, like manipulation, make more sense to me than broad bans, as discussed in Questions 23-28 around procedural approaches.
I appreciate the CFTC taking the time to hear from people like me. I hope you'll support proportionate regulation of prediction markets that keeps them accessible to regular citizens while ensuring safety and fairness. Let's not over-restrict or ban something that has real potential for good.
Sincerely,
Marco Antonio Ledesma
