Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Alexis Viveros, and I'm just an everyday person from Idaho writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I feel strongly that these markets shouldn't be treated as gambling. They have real value for people like me, and I hope you'll consider my perspective as you work on regulations.
I got into prediction markets because I wanted a way to make sense of all the uncertainty around big events, like elections or economic decisions, that impact my life. When I trade on Kalshi, I'm not just throwing money at a game of chance. I'm doing research, reading up on news, and making informed guesses about what might happen. It's no different from how people invest in stocks or commodities based on their understanding of the world. Classifying event contracts as "gaming," as discussed in some of your questions under Topic C (like Question 15), ignores the real economic purpose they serve. They're tools for price discovery and even hedging against risks that affect my budget, like inflation numbers impacting my grocery bills or interest rate decisions affecting my plans to buy a home.
I also think these markets are a public good. The prices on prediction platforms often turn out more accurate than polls or expert opinions. That information helps everyone, not just traders. If you restrict or ban these markets, you're cutting off a unique source of insight that regular folks like me can access and contribute to. I worry that labeling them as gambling could push activity to unregulated offshore sites, which would be worse for consumer protection, a concern raised in Topic B (like Question 7).
I get that there are risks, like potential manipulation or insider trading, which you address in Topics A and E (Questions 1 and 29). But those issues are already illegal, and the CFTC has the power to go after bad actors. Shutting down or over-restricting prediction markets to stop a few cheaters feels like punishing the rest of us who use them responsibly. Instead, I think you should focus on targeted rules to address specific problems without throwing out the whole system.
I'm just one voice from Idaho, but I hope you'll see that event contracts aren't a game. They're a legitimate way for people to engage with the world, manage risks, and share information. Please support proportionate regulation that keeps prediction markets accessible while addressing real concerns. Don't let broad bans or "gaming" labels take away something so useful.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Alexis Viveros
