Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Harrison Freeman, and I'm a citizen from Illinois 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, and I see them as a valuable tool, both for gaining insight into public perception on big issues and, honestly, for making a little money on the side. Im not a financial expert, just someone who believes these markets have a unique place in our economy, and I want to see them regulated in a way that keeps them accessible and safe.
I think prediction markets are a fantastic source of information that you can't get from traditional media or polls. They're often more accurate about what people really think, and that benefits everyone, not just traders like me. I also appreciate that they let regular folks participate in something that feels meaningful. Plus, I can see real value in using these markets to hedge personal financial risks, like protecting against policy changes or economic shifts that hit my wallet. I want the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets like Kalshi, which feel much safer than the shady offshore platforms out there.
My biggest concern is that banning or over-restricting prediction markets will just push people to those unregulated sites. I've seen how that works with other things, like sports betting, where lack of legal options drives activity to sketchy corners of the internet. The US should be leading on financial innovation, not letting other countries take over because were too strict. Regulated markets under the CFTC's watch are the way to go for consumer protection. Im all for rules that target specific problems, like manipulation or insider trading, but broad bans would hurt regular users like me more than the bad actors.
Looking at some of the questions in the ANPR, I want to weigh in on a few. On Question 7 about balancing innovation and consumer protection, I think the answer is clear: keep markets like Kalshi open with strong oversight rather than shutting them down. On Question 23 about public interest determinations, Id say dont make blanket decisions to ban whole categories; look at each market individually to see if it serves a real purpose. And for Question 29 on inside information, I believe the existing laws against insider trading are enough if theyre enforced properly.
I believe the average American would benefit from legal event trading, but it needs targeted, actively enforced rules, much like traditional futures or even sports betting. I urge the CFTC to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets and avoid over-restricting them. Lets keep this innovative tool accessible and safe for people like me.
Ai summarized/wrote everything above this. I deleted any egregious additions I disagreed with, but the rest mostly aligns with my views. I belive the most important thing is targeted and stringently enforced legislation. Frankly sports scores/wins/players-stats is absolutely gaming. On the other hand, I feel things like management actions of teams and press conference mentions aren't a good fit under gaming. There is nuance and value to these markets, and I'm optimistic that an empowered and reinforced CFTC can tame this new economic bull.
Peace y'all,
Harrison Freeman
