Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Nathan Hurst, and I'm just an everyday citizen from California 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 while now, mainly to hedge risks that affect my personal finances, and I strongly support regulating these markets in a fair and balanced way rather than restricting or banning them.
I rely on platforms like Kalshi, which are regulated here in the US, to get a clearer picture of events that impact my life, like election outcomes or economic shifts. Honestly, the forecasts from prediction markets have consistently been more accurate than polls or pundits on TV. That kind of information isn't just useful for me when I'm deciding how to manage my risks; it's valuable for everyone, from regular folks to policymakers who need solid data to make decisions. I also appreciate how these markets let me hedge against uncertainties, like how a policy change might hit my budget. This isn't gambling to me. It takes research and real-world judgment, just like any other investment.
I'm worried, though, that over-restricting or banning these markets would push activity to unregulated offshore platforms. I've looked at some of those sites, and they don't offer the same consumer protections that a CFTC-regulated platform like Kalshi does. If we want to keep users safe and maintain transparency, regulation is the way to go, not prohibition. Plus, the US should be leading the charge in financial innovation. If we clamp down too hard, other countries will take the lead, and we'll lose out.
I also want to address a few specific questions from the ANPR. On Questions 7 to 14 about public interest, I believe prediction markets serve a real purpose in price discovery and risk management, and the benefits outweigh the risks if they're properly regulated. As for Questions 29 to 32 on inside information, I think informed trading actually helps make prices more accurate, benefiting everyone in the market. And let's not forget that the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle manipulation and insider trading. There's no need for broad bans when targeted rules can address specific issues. Finally, on Questions 15 to 22 about listed activities, I don't think event contracts should be labeled as gaming. They have legitimate economic uses, like hedging, and shouldn't be treated like a casino game.
I urge you to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Don't over-restrict or ban them, as that would just drive activity offshore and away from oversight. Let's keep these markets safe, transparent, and innovative right here in the US.
Sincerely,
Nathan Hurst
