Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Matt DeSanto, and I'm just 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've used prediction markets a few times myself, and I strongly support their continued availability under fair, well-thought-out regulation. I believe they provide real value to people like me and to society as a whole.
First off, I've seen how prediction markets often give better forecasts than polls or so-called expert opinions. I remember checking a platform before the last election, and the market's odds were way closer to the actual result than anything I saw on TV or in the news. That kind of information isn't just helpful for traders; it's useful for everyone trying to make sense of what's happening. Plus, these markets let regular folks like me participate in a system that aggregates real knowledge. Keeping that access open feels fair and honestly makes the data better.
I also want to stress that this isn't gambling, no matter what some might say. When I trade on a prediction market, I'm doing research and using my judgment about real-world events, just like I would for any investment. And there's a practical side too. I've used these markets to hedge against outcomes that could hit my wallet, like policy changes affecting my taxes. Businesses do this too, protecting against regulatory shifts or economic uncertainty. That's a legitimate economic purpose, not a game.
I'm glad platforms like Kalshi operate under CFTC oversight. I'd much rather use a regulated market than some sketchy offshore site with no protections. Banning or over-restricting these markets won't stop people from trading; it'll just push activity to places where there's no accountability. The US should be leading the way on financial innovation, not handing that advantage to other countries. I think the CFTC can address specific risks without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Targeted rules for things like manipulation or insider trading make more sense than broad bans.
On some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to touch on a couple from the Public Interest section. For Question 7, about balancing innovation and consumer protection, I think regulated markets already strike a good balance by giving access while having oversight to prevent abuse. And for Question 9, on price discovery, I believe informed trading actually helps everyone by making prices more accurate, reflecting real probabilities.
I urge you to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Don't ban or overly restrict them. Keep access open for regular people like me, and focus on enforcing the rules you already have against bad actors. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Matt DeSanto
