Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Bence Lukacsy, and I'm a small business owner from Rhode Island. I'm writing to express my strong support for the proportionate regulation of prediction markets as outlined in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). I've been actively trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I believe these markets provide real value to people like me, as well as to the broader public.
As a business owner, I deal with uncertainty every day, whether it's economic shifts or policy changes that could affect my operations. Prediction markets give me access to information that I can't find anywhere else. Their forecasts have consistently been more accurate than polls or pundits, and that helps me make better decisions for my business. This isn't just helpful for traders; the aggregated information benefits everyone, from policymakers to regular citizens trying to understand what's coming next.
I also want to stress that these markets are not gambling. Trading on Kalshi requires research and judgment about real-world events, much like trading stocks or commodities. Event contracts serve legitimate economic purposes, like hedging risks or discovering prices. Classifying them as "gaming" feels like a misstep to me, and I urge the CFTC to recognize their value as financial tools. This ties directly to Question 15 in your ANPR about defining gaming versus legitimate markets. I believe the focus should be on the economic utility of these contracts, not on labeling them in a way that could unfairly restrict them.
Another big concern for me is the risk of over-restriction or outright bans. If regulated markets like Kalshi are squeezed too hard, people will just turn to unregulated offshore platforms. I've seen what those look like; they're far less safe, with no consumer protections. Regulation by the CFTC keeps us in a transparent, accountable system, which is better for everyone. This relates to Questions 7 and 8 on balancing innovation with consumer protection. I think the answer lies in strong oversight, not prohibition.
Finally, I believe informed trading actually improves price discovery. When knowledgeable participants trade, the market prices get sharper, and that helps all of us. Addressing Questions 29 and 30 on inside information, I'd argue that the CFTC should focus on enforcing existing laws against insider trading rather than limiting the markets themselves. Banning or over-restricting prediction markets to stop a few bad actors punishes the rest of us who use them responsibly.
I respectfully ask the CFTC to support well-regulated prediction markets with targeted rules that address specific risks without stifling innovation or pushing activity offshore. These markets are too valuable to lose.
Sincerely,
Bence Lukacsy
