Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Landen Hajji, and I'm a student from Michigan. I've been actively trading on prediction markets like Kalshi for a while now, and I wanted to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I strongly support well-regulated prediction markets, and I believe they are not only amazing for the economy but also necessary for better decision-making and innovation.
As a student, I find prediction markets incredibly valuable for understanding the world around me. The forecasts they produce on elections and public events are often more accurate than polls or pundits. I've seen this firsthand on platforms like Kalshi, where the collective wisdom of traders cuts through noise and bias. This isn't just useful for me; it helps everyone, from regular citizens to policymakers, by providing better information. I think this ties directly to Questions 7 and 8 in your notice about the public interest and price discovery benefits of these markets.
I also believe that event contracts aren't gambling. They serve real economic purposes, like hedging risks that affect everyday life. For example, I've used prediction markets to think through how election outcomes might impact policies that affect my student loans or future job prospects. This isn't a game; it's a way to make informed decisions. I'd urge the CFTC to consider this in Questions 15 and 16, where you ask about defining gaming versus legitimate market activity. These contracts are more like investing than betting.
I'm also concerned about what happens if these markets are banned or over-restricted. Regulated platforms like Kalshi are safe and transparent, but if you push too hard with restrictions, people will just move to unregulated offshore sites. Thats worse for everyone. The U.S. should be leading in financial innovation, not handing the advantage to other countries. I think this relates to Questions 33 and 34 on classification and regulatory costs. Proportionate rules, not broad bans, are the way to go.
Finally, on the issue of manipulation or insider trading, I believe the CFTC already has strong tools to handle bad actors. Banning entire markets to stop a few cheaters punishes the rest of us who trade honestly. Plus, informed trading actually helps make prices more accurate, benefiting everyone. This connects to Questions 29 and 30 about inside information and price discovery. Let's focus on enforcing existing laws, not creating new barriers.
I urge the CFTC to support prediction markets with fair, targeted regulations that protect consumers without stifling innovation. These markets are too important to over-restrict or push underground. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Landen Hajji
