Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Alexander Pérez, and I'm a student from Massachusetts. I'm writing to express my strong support for the proportionate regulation of prediction markets as outlined in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). As someone who actively trades on platforms like Kalshi, I've seen firsthand the value these markets provide, and I believe the CFTC has an opportunity to foster innovation while protecting consumers.
Prediction markets aren't just a hobby for me; they help me make sense of complex events like elections and economic shifts. I've found their forecasts to be more reliable than traditional polls or media pundits, especially during the last election cycle when I used market data to better understand public sentiment for a research project. This kind of accurate, real-time information isn't available anywhere else, and it benefits not just traders like me but anyone who wants to understand the world better. Beyond forecasting, I've also used these markets to hedge personal financial risks, like potential policy changes that could impact my student loans or future job prospects. This isn't gambling. It takes research and judgment, much like investing in stocks, and I believe event contracts serve legitimate economic purposes. Classifying them as "gaming" would be a misstep.
I also think the US should be a leader in financial innovation. As a student studying markets and policy, I'm worried that overly restrictive rules could push platforms offshore, where there's no oversight. I've seen unregulated sites out there, and they're far riskier for users like me. Regulation under the CFTC, like what Kalshi operates under, keeps things transparent and safe. This ties directly to consumer protection, a key concern of mine. I'd rather trade on a regulated US market than take my chances elsewhere.
In response to some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to address Question 8 under Public Interest. I believe prediction markets do serve the public good by providing unique data and hedging tools, and the CFTC should balance innovation with targeted protections rather than broad bans. On Question 15 under Listed Activities, I urge you not to equate event contracts with gaming. Their economic utility is clear. And regarding Question 23 under Procedural Aspects, I think public interest determinations should focus on specific risks, not categorical prohibitions, to avoid stifling useful markets.
I understand concerns about manipulation or insider trading, but the CFTC already has tools to address these issues. Banning or over-restricting prediction markets punishes honest users like me and drives activity to less safe venues. Please focus on proportionate rules that target bad actors without harming the broader ecosystem.
Thank you for considering my input. I strongly encourage the CFTC to support well-regulated prediction markets and avoid broad restrictions that could undermine their value.
Sincerely,
Alexander Pérez
