Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Nathan Robles, and I'm just an everyday 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've used prediction markets a few times, and I believe theyre a valuable tool that deserves fair and thoughtful regulation, not heavy-handed restrictions.
I support well-regulated prediction markets because they provide information you cant get anywhere else. Ive seen firsthand how their forecasts often beat out polls or pundits on things like elections or economic trends. That kind of insight isnt just helpful for traders like me, its useful for everyone, from regular folks to policymakers. Plus, these markets let ordinary people like me participate in a system thats usually dominated by big institutions. Keeping access open feels fair and honestly makes the predictions sharper with more voices involved.
I also think prediction markets are more than just speculation. Theyve got real economic value. For instance, Ive used them to hedge against uncertainties, like how an election might impact policies that affect my wallet. Businesses do this too, managing risks from regulations or tariffs. This isnt gambling, its a practical tool. Classifying event contracts as gaming feels wrong when they serve purposes like hedging and price discovery, just like other investments. Im also glad platforms like Kalshi operate under CFTC oversight. Regulated markets are way safer than unregulated offshore ones. If we ban or over-restrict these markets, people will just go to less safe places, and that helps no one.
On the flip side, I get the concerns about manipulation or insider trading. But the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle those issues, just like with other derivatives. Banning whole categories of contracts or making rules too tight punishes honest participants like me instead of targeting bad actors. And honestly, informed trading often makes prices more accurate, which benefits everyone. Id rather see proportionate rules that address specific risks than broad prohibitions.
Im looking at some of the questions in your ANPR, like numbers 7 and 8 on balancing innovation with consumer protection, and number 15 on defining gaming versus legitimate markets. I think the US should lead in financial innovation, not let other countries take over. And for number 29, about inside information, I believe the focus should be on enforcing existing laws, not shutting down markets. Lets keep this space open and safe with targeted regulation.
I urge you to support prediction markets with fair, balanced rules that let regular people participate while addressing real risks. Dont ban or over-restrict them. Thanks for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Nathan Robles
