Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Connor Shillam, and I'm an everyday citizen from Washington state 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've been following their growth with interest, and I strongly support their development under fair, well-thought-out regulation by the CFTC.
I believe prediction markets offer something unique: accurate forecasting for elections and public events that often beats polls or pundits. As someone who tries to stay informed, I see real value in a tool that aggregates what people actually think, based on where they put their money. It's not just for traders; it helps everyone by providing clearer signals about what's likely to happen. Beyond that, these markets let regular people like me participate in a legal, regulated space, which feels fair and democratic. I also think they serve real economic purposes, like helping individuals or businesses hedge risks tied to political or economic outcomes. A small business owner, for instance, could use these markets to offset uncertainty around policy changes. This isn't gambling; it's a practical tool, much like trading stocks or commodities.
I do understand concerns about consumer protection, and that's why I support regulation over outright bans or heavy restrictions. Regulated platforms like Kalshi are far safer than unregulated offshore alternatives. If the CFTC over-restricts these markets, people will just turn to less safe, foreign sites, and that helps no one. Targeted rules addressing specific risks, like manipulation or insider trading, make more sense than broad categorical bans. Plus, informed trading in these markets actually improves price discovery, benefiting all participants by making predictions sharper. I'm also concerned that if we stifle prediction markets here, the U.S. risks losing ground in financial innovation to other countries. We should be leading, not lagging.
Looking at some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to address a few points. On Questions 7 to 14 about public interest, I think the balance should tilt toward innovation while protecting consumers through oversight, not prohibition. On Questions 15 to 22 about listed activities, I urge the CFTC not to classify event contracts as gaming; they have legitimate purposes like hedging and forecasting. And on Questions 33 to 40 regarding costs and benefits, I believe proportionate regulation can keep costs down for small entities while still ensuring safety.
In closing, I ask the CFTC to support prediction markets with reasonable, targeted rules that address real risks without shutting down a valuable tool. Let's keep this innovation alive and safe in the U.S. Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Connor Shillam
