Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is John Doe, and I'm a trader and investor based in New York. I've been actively trading on prediction markets like Kalshi for a while now, and I'm writing to support the development of well-regulated prediction markets in response to your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). I believe these markets provide unique value to people like me and to society as a whole, and I urge the CFTC to regulate them proportionately without imposing bans or overly restrictive rules.
As a trader, I rely on prediction markets for insights that I simply can't get from polls or pundits. I've seen firsthand how platforms like Kalshi often predict election outcomes or other public events with far more accuracy than traditional sources. For example, during the last election cycle, the market prices on Kalshi gave me a clearer picture of what was likely to happen than any news outlet or survey. This isn't just useful for traders; it benefits everyone by providing better information about the world. I think the CFTC should recognize this forecasting value when considering regulations, especially in response to questions 7 and 8 about the public interest.
I'm also concerned about maintaining US competitiveness in financial innovation. If prediction markets face excessive restrictions here, activity will just move to unregulated offshore platforms. I've traded on Kalshi because it's a regulated, transparent market under CFTC oversight, which makes me feel safer as a participant. But if barriers are too high, people like me might turn to less secure options abroad. That doesn't protect anyone. I believe the CFTC should focus on keeping these markets regulated and onshore, as touched on in questions 33 and 34 about classification and costs.
Finally, I value my freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. Prediction markets aren't gambling; they require research and judgment, much like trading stocks or futures. Banning or over-restricting them would limit my ability to engage with events that matter to me, whether it's an election or an economic indicator. It's about having a stake in understanding what's happening, and I think regular folks like me should have that chance, not just big institutions.
I appreciate that the CFTC is seeking input on complex issues like insider trading or manipulation, as raised in questions 29 through 32. I agree those are real concerns, but the answer isn't to shut down these markets. You already have tools to address bad actors, and focusing on enforcement rather than broad prohibitions makes more sense to me.
I urge the CFTC to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Keep them accessible, safe, and under US jurisdiction. Don't let heavy-handed rules push innovation and participation offshore. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
John Doe
