Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Scott Parker, and I'm just an everyday citizen from California 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, for the first time, platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have let regular folks like me trade on everyday events, not just Wall Street stuff. I believe this opportunity should stay open to everyone, and I'm asking the CFTC to support fair, proportionate regulation of these markets instead of banning or overly restricting them.
I've been actively trading on prediction markets for a while now, and I can tell you they're not just a game or a gamble. They take real thought and research, just like any investment. If people want to call this gambling, then what is Wall Street? Stock trading involves risk and judgment too, but no one shuts that down. Prediction markets give me access to information I can't get anywhere else. Their forecasts on things like elections or economic data often beat polls and pundits hands down. That kind of insight isn't just useful to me; it's valuable to everyone, from regular people to policymakers.
What worries me is the idea of banning or over-restricting these markets. I trade on regulated platforms like Kalshi, which feels safe and transparent. If the CFTC clamps down too hard, people like me will get pushed to unregulated offshore sites that don't have the same protections. I've seen those platforms, and they're a lot riskier. Keeping prediction markets regulated here in the US is the better way to protect consumers while still allowing innovation. Honestly, the US should be leading on this kind of financial innovation, not leaving it to other countries to figure out.
I also want to address some of the specific questions in the ANPR. Regarding Questions 7 to 14 on public interest, I think the balance should lean toward allowing innovation while using existing tools to protect consumers. On Questions 15 to 22 about defining gaming versus legitimate markets, I strongly believe event contracts serve real economic purposes like price discovery and hedging, not just entertainment. They're not gambling in any meaningful sense. And for Questions 23 to 28 on procedural aspects, I'd urge the CFTC to avoid broad categorical bans and instead focus on targeted rules for specific risks like manipulation or insider trading, which are already illegal anyway.
I'm not saying there are no risks here. I get that some might worry about manipulation or bad actors. But the CFTC already has the power to go after those problems without shutting down entire markets. Let's not punish regular people like me who use these platforms responsibly. I hope you'll support well-regulated prediction markets that let everyday citizens participate fairly and keep the US at the forefront of innovation.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Scott Parker
