Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Elijah Ellis, and I'm just a regular 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 actively trading on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket for a while now, and I believe these markets are valuable tools that shouldn't be overly restricted or banned. I'm asking for your consideration in crafting rules that support prediction markets with fair regulation.
I first got into prediction markets because I wanted a better way to understand what's happening in the world, especially around elections and big public events. Honestly, I've found their forecasts to be way more accurate than what I see from polls or pundits on TV. Last year, for example, I was following the predictions for a major election on Kalshi, and the market prices were closer to the actual outcome than any news outlet I checked. That kind of insight isn't just helpful to me as a trader; it's useful for anyone trying to make sense of uncertain events. I think society benefits when we have access to this aggregated information, and shutting down these markets would take that away.
I also want to push back on the idea that event contracts are just gambling. I spend a lot of time reading up on politics, economic trends, and other real-world issues before making trades. It's not a game of chance; it's about judgment and research, much like investing in stocks. These contracts have legitimate economic purposes, like helping people hedge risks or gain clarity on future events. Labeling them as "gaming" feels like a misunderstanding of what they do. I'm particularly interested in your questions 15 through 22 on listed activities and whether these markets are seen as gaming. My view is clear: they serve a real purpose and shouldn't be treated like a casino game.
I get that there are concerns about things like insider trading or manipulation, and those shouldn't be ignored. But the CFTC already has laws and tools to deal with bad actors. Banning or over-restricting prediction markets punishes everyone for the actions of a few. It's better to focus on enforcing existing rules than to limit a useful tool. I'm also drawn to questions 7 through 14 on public interest. I believe the balance should lean toward innovation and access for regular people like me, while still protecting consumers with smart oversight.
In the end, I'm asking you to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Don't ban them or create rules so strict that only big institutions can participate. Keep these markets open to everyday folks who want to engage with the world in a meaningful way. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Elijah Ellis
