Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Blade Hirschi, and I'm just a regular guy from Utah who cares about having access to fair, regulated financial tools. I'm writing in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 12516. I've been trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I want to share why I think prediction markets are valuable and why the CFTC should support them with smart, targeted regulation instead of heavy-handed restrictions.
I got into prediction markets because I wanted better information about things like elections and big public events. Honestly, I've found the forecasts on these platforms to be way more accurate than what I hear from polls or pundits on TV. That kind of insight helps me make sense of the world, and I know it helps others too, whether they're trading or just watching the numbers. It's not just about making a buck. It's about getting a clearer picture of what's likely to happen, which is useful for everyone, from regular folks like me to businesses and even policymakers. I also believe letting everyday people like me participate makes the markets stronger. If you lock us out and leave it to big institutions, the good info stays with them, and that's not fair.
I know there are worries about things like manipulation or insider trading, and I get that. But banning or over-restricting these markets isn't the answer. I'm no lawyer, but I know the CFTC already has rules against bad behavior in other markets, and those tools can work here too. Plus, regulated platforms like Kalshi are a lot safer than the sketchy offshore sites people will turn to if you clamp down too hard. Pushing activity overseas doesn't solve problems; it makes them worse. And let's be clear, this isn't gambling. Trading on Kalshi takes research and real-world judgment, just like investing in stocks. Calling it "gaming" feels like a stretch when it serves real purposes, like hedging risks or discovering prices.
I'm also worried about the US falling behind. We should be leading on financial innovation, not handing that edge to other countries. I've read about the academic research backing prediction markets, how they improve information and transparency. That stuff matters. So, in response to some of your questions, like numbers 7 and 8 on public interest and price discovery, I think these markets are a net positive. And for questions 15 and 16 on defining "gaming," I strongly believe event contracts aren't games; they're economic tools. As for question 29 on informed trading, I think it actually helps make prices more accurate, which benefits everyone.
I urge the CFTC to regulate prediction markets in a proportionate way. Target the real risks with specific rules, not broad bans. Don't shut out regular people like me who value these tools. Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Blade Hirschi
