Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is John Asshole, and I'm just a regular guy from Pennsylvania writing to you about the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I'm not a lawyer or some big shot, just someone who trades on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket and sees real value in these markets. I want to share my thoughts because I believe event contracts aren't gambling, and the U.S. should be leading the way on this kind of financial innovation.
I got into trading on prediction markets a while back, and I spend a lot of time researching before I put money down. It's not like rolling dice at a casino. I'm looking at data, reading news, and thinking hard about what's likely to happen, whether it's an election outcome or some economic report. To me, that's no different from picking stocks or betting on commodity prices. Classifying these event contracts as "gaming" feels wrong. They have a real purpose, like helping me hedge against stuff that affects my life, such as policy changes that could hit my wallet. I don't see why this should be treated any different from other investments.
Also, I think the U.S. needs to be at the front of this game. If we over-regulate or shut down prediction markets, people like me will just go to offshore platforms that aren't as safe. I've seen what happens when other countries take the lead on new ideas, and we get left behind. We should be the ones setting the standard, not playing catch-up. Regulate these markets, sure, but don't kill them off.
I know some folks worry about manipulation or insider trading, and I get that. But aren't there already laws against that kind of thing? The CFTC has the power to crack down on bad actors without banning the whole market. I'd hate to see regular traders like me get punished just because a few people might cheat.
Looking at some of the questions in the ANPR, I want to touch on Question 15 about defining gaming versus legitimate markets. Again, I think event contracts are legit for economic reasons, not just a game. And on Question 7 about balancing innovation and consumer protection, I believe we can have both if the rules are fair and targeted.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I'll admit. Sometimes I do dumb stuff, like seeing if I can fit my whole fist in my mouth (spoiler: I can). But even an idiot like me can see that prediction markets are useful and shouldn't be lumped in with gambling. I hope you'll support proportionate regulation that keeps these markets open and safe for regular people like me to participate.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
John Asshole
P.S. Kalshi wrote all of this using "AI." None of it is my real opinion, but I added some fun details to make it interesting.
