Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Logan Cermak, and I'm just a regular person from Ohio writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been following this issue because I actively trade on platforms like Kalshi, and I believe these markets are important for people like me. I want to express my support for well-regulated prediction markets and ask that you avoid overly restrictive rules or outright bans.
I know there's been debate about platforms like Kalshi, and I've heard calls to ban them and even refund money invested. I respectfully disagree with that view. Prediction markets aren't just a game or a gamble. They're a tool that helps people like me manage real risks in our lives. For example, I run a small side business selling handmade goods, and election outcomes or policy changes can directly impact my costs and taxes. Trading on prediction markets lets me hedge against those uncertainties, giving me a bit of financial stability when things feel unpredictable. It's not much different from how farmers or businesses use other markets to protect against price swings.
I also value the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. These platforms give everyday folks a chance to engage with the world in a meaningful way, not just big institutions or insiders. The information I get from prediction market prices often feels more reliable than what I hear from pundits or polls. It's a democratized way to understand what's really going on, and I think shutting that down would be a mistake. If anything, keeping these markets regulated under the CFTC is safer than pushing activity to unregulated offshore sites.
Regarding some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to address Question 7 on balancing innovation and consumer protection under the public interest topic. I believe prediction markets are innovative and useful, but I get the need for oversight to prevent manipulation or insider trading. The CFTC already has strong tools to handle those issues in other markets, and I think you can apply similar rules here without banning entire categories of contracts. Also, on Question 15 about defining gaming versus legitimate markets, I urge you to recognize that event contracts have real economic value for hedging, just like other derivatives, and shouldn't be lumped in with gambling.
I know there are concerns about bad actors or insider information, but banning these markets isn't the answer. Punishing everyone for the actions of a few doesn't seem fair. Instead, focus on enforcing the laws already in place against manipulation and insider trading. I'm asking you to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets, ensuring they remain accessible to regular people like me while addressing specific risks with targeted rules.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Logan Cermak
