Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Lance Dionne, and I'm a regular citizen from Pennsylvania 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 role in our economy and believe they should be regulated fairly, not banned or overly restricted.
I first got interested in prediction markets because I've seen how often polls and pundits get things wrong, especially with elections and big public events. The prices on these markets seem to cut through the noise and give a clearer picture of what's likely to happen. That kind of information isn't just useful for traders; it helps everyone, from regular folks like me to policymakers, make better decisions. I also think it's important that everyday people can participate in these markets. Locking them up for just big institutions would keep all that valuable insight out of reach for the rest of us.
Beyond forecasting, I see real value in how prediction markets let people hedge against risks. For example, if an election outcome could affect my taxes or a small business I might start someday, trading on a market could help offset that uncertainty. This isn't gambling in my view. It takes research and judgment, just like investing in stocks. Classifying event contracts as "gaming" feels like a misstep when they serve legitimate economic purposes like price discovery and risk management.
I'm also concerned about what happens if we over-restrict these markets. I've read about platforms like Kalshi, which operate under CFTC oversight, and that seems far safer than pushing activity to unregulated offshore sites. If we ban or limit prediction markets too much, that's where people will go, and it'll be harder to protect consumers. Plus, the US should be leading the way in financial innovation. We shouldn't let other countries take the lead because we're too cautious.
I noticed some of the questions in the ANPR, like numbers 7 and 8 under Public Interest, ask about balancing innovation with consumer protection. I think the answer is proportionate regulation, not broad bans. Target the real risks, like manipulation or insider trading, with the tools the CFTC already has. Questions 29 through 32 on inside information also caught my eye. Informed trading actually helps make prices more accurate, benefiting everyone, and existing laws already ban federal employees from misusing nonpublic info. Let's enforce those rules instead of punishing all participants.
I urge you to support well-regulated prediction markets with targeted rules that address specific concerns without stifling their benefits. Let's keep this innovation accessible, safe, and American-led.
Sincerely,
Lance Dionne
