Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Jon Cason, and I'm just an everyday citizen from Alaska writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been using prediction markets for a few years now, mainly to hedge risks tied to political events and elections, and I strongly support regulating these markets in a fair and balanced way rather than restricting or banning them outright.
Living in Alaska, major national events like elections can feel far away, yet they hit close to home with impacts on taxes, regulations, and even local industries like fishing or energy that my family and I depend on. I invest almost exclusively in political and election markets because they give me a way to manage some of that uncertainty. It's not just about money; it's a form of entertainment and even therapy. It helps me feel a small sense of control over big things that affect my life but that I can't directly influence. More than that, though, it's a practical tool for hedging real financial risks tied to policy changes. I think of it as similar to buying insurance for my family's future.
I believe prediction markets aren't gambling, no matter how some might label them. They serve a real economic purpose, much like trading stocks or commodities. It takes research and judgment to participate, and the prices often provide better forecasts for elections and public events than polls or pundits. I've seen this firsthand; the data from these markets has helped me make more informed decisions, not just in trading but in planning for my family's financial stability. That kind of price discovery benefits everyone, not just traders like me. Its information the public can use, and I think allowing regular people to participate, not just big institutions, makes the system fairer and the forecasts sharper.
I'm also aware of concerns about insider trading or manipulation, and I get why those are issues. But I don't think the answer is broad bans or over-restrictive rules. The CFTC already has tools to tackle bad actors, and those should be used instead of punishing everyone by shutting down access. Proportionate regulation that targets specific risks makes more sense to me. Regarding some of the questions in the ANPR, like those in Topic B on public interest (Questions 7-14), I think the balance should lean toward innovation and access while still protecting consumers. And on Topic C (Questions 15-22), I strongly feel event contracts shouldn't be classified as gaming when they clearly serve purposes like hedging and price discovery.
I urge you to support well-regulated prediction markets that allow everyday people like me to participate legally and safely. Don't let broad restrictions or categorical bans take away a tool that helps us manage risk and stay informed. Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Jon Cason
