Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Jonathan Tjong, and I'm a software engineer based in California. I work in tech, where data and forecasting are critical to decision-making, and I've been an active trader on prediction markets like Kalshi for a couple of years now. I'm writing in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516) to express my strong support for well-regulated prediction markets. I believe they provide unique value to individuals like me, to businesses, and to society as a whole.
As someone who deals with uncertainty in tech projects daily, I find prediction markets incredibly useful for getting a clearer picture of future events. Whether it's an election outcome that could impact tech regulations or a Federal Reserve decision that might affect my personal finances, the aggregated data from these markets often beats polls or pundit opinions. I've used Kalshi to hedge risks tied to policy changes that could hit my freelance consulting income, like tax reforms or data privacy laws. This isn't just speculative play; it's a practical way to manage real financial exposure.
I also value the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. Banning or over-restricting prediction markets won't stop people from trading; it will just push activity to unregulated offshore platforms with zero consumer protections. I've seen firsthand in the tech world how innovation thrives under clear rules, not outright bans. The US should be leading in financial innovation, not handing that edge to other countries. Regulated markets like Kalshi keep things transparent and safe, and I'd rather trade here than on some sketchy foreign site.
Addressing some of your specific questions, like those in Topic B (Questions 7-14) on public interest and price discovery, I believe informed trading actually improves market accuracy. When people with knowledge participate, the prices reflect better information, which helps everyone, not just traders. On Topic C (Questions 15-22) about defining gaming, I strongly feel event contracts aren't gambling. They serve legitimate purposes like hedging and forecasting, much like trading futures or stocks. Calling this gaming would be like calling all investing a game of chance.
I recognize concerns about manipulation or insider trading, but the CFTC already has tools to tackle those issues. Broad categorical bans punish everyone for the actions of a few. Targeted, proportionate regulation makes more sense, focusing on specific risks without stifling the benefits.
I'm asking you to support a regulatory framework for prediction markets that encourages innovation and protects consumers without shutting down access. These markets help individuals and businesses manage risk, improve public information, and keep the US competitive. Let's build rules that work, not barriers that don't.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Tjong
