Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Nicolas Cortes, and I'm a regular 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'm not an expert or a big investor, just someone who believes in fair access to legal, regulated markets. I'm new to prediction markets, but I strongly support their existence under thoughtful oversight, and I hope my perspective adds to your considerations.
I think prediction markets are valuable because they give everyday people like me a chance to engage with information in a unique way. They're not just for Wall Street or big institutions. They let regular folks participate in understanding and forecasting events that affect our lives, whether it's an election, a policy change, or even something like inflation numbers that hit my grocery bill. I don't see this as gambling. It takes research and judgment, much like deciding to invest in a company or a mutual fund. Labeling event contracts as "gaming" feels wrong to me, because they serve real economic purposes, like helping people hedge against risks or make sense of uncertain outcomes.
I understand there are concerns about things like insider trading or manipulation. Those are real issues, no question. But I don't think the answer is to ban or heavily restrict entire categories of contracts. Instead, I believe the CFTC should focus on proportionate, targeted rules that address specific risks without shutting down the whole market. Punishing everyone for the actions of a few bad actors doesn't seem fair. Plus, the CFTC already has tools to tackle manipulation and fraud in other markets. Why not adapt those here?
Looking at some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to touch on Question 8 under Public Interest. I think prediction markets do serve the public good by providing information that's often more accurate than polls or pundits. That benefits everyone, not just traders. On Question 15 under Listed Activities, I urge you not to classify these contracts as gaming. Theyre about real-world events and real economic needs, not chance or luck. And for Question 23 under Procedural Aspects, I think any public interest determinations should happen with clear, narrow criteria, not broad bans that could stifle innovation.
I hope the CFTC will support well-regulated prediction markets with rules that target actual problems rather than over-restricting access. These markets can be a tool for people like me to better understand and navigate the world, and Id hate to see that opportunity taken away. Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Nicolas Cortes
