Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Kenneth Evans, and I'm a trader and investor based in Mississippi. I've been actively trading on prediction markets like Kalshi for a while now, and I'm writing to express my strong support for well-regulated prediction markets in response to your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). I believe these markets provide unique value, both to me as a trader and to society at large, and I urge you to craft regulations that support their growth rather than restrict them.
As someone who trades regularly, I've seen firsthand how prediction markets offer information you can't get anywhere else. Whether it's an election outcome or a major public event, the prices on these markets often cut through the noise of polls and pundits. They're not perfect, but they've been more accurate than most other sources I follow. This isn't just useful for traders like me; it helps everyone, from journalists to policymakers, make sense of what's likely to happen. I think that's a public good worth protecting.
One thing I want to stress is how informed trading makes these markets better for everyone. When people like me dig into data, read up on issues, and trade based on what we learn, it sharpens the price signals. That benefits all participants, not just the ones placing bets. I've spent hours researching election trends or economic indicators before making trades on Kalshi, and I know others do the same. This isn't gambling; it's a skill, much like trading stocks or commodities. Regarding your questions on inside information (specifically Questions 29-31), I'd argue that informed traders are essential for price discovery. Yes, insider trading is a concern, but it's already illegal, and the CFTC has tools to tackle it. Banning or over-restricting these markets to stop a few bad actors would hurt the rest of us and kill off the valuable information these platforms produce.
I'm also concerned about access. Prediction markets let regular folks like me participate in a space that would otherwise be dominated by big institutions. If you clamp down too hard, you'll push people to unregulated offshore platforms, which are far riskier. On public interest (Question 7), I think the balance should lean toward innovation and access while using existing safeguards to protect consumers.
I know there are legitimate worries about manipulation or misuse, and I get that. But the answer isn't shutting down prediction markets. Your existing powers to fight fraud and manipulation can be applied here without broad bans. I strongly encourage you to support proportionate regulation that keeps these markets open, safe, and accessible to everyday traders like me.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Evans
