Comment Text:
I am submitting this comment because I recently received an email from Kalshi encouraging me to write a positive comment to the CFTC about prediction markets. They even created an AI tool to help users generate supportive submissions. I found that deeply troubling. When a regulated entity tries to manufacture public sentiment through scripted or AI‑generated praise, it signals a lack of genuine grassroots support and raises questions about whether the platform understands—or is willing to acknowledge—the risks its products pose. The Commission’s notice points out that event contracts now cover political, cultural, and current events, and that some events are “under the control of a single individual or small group of individuals.” That alone should give pause. These markets are not harmless forecasting tools; they are high‑intensity gambling products tied to real‑world events that people can influence, and they create powerful incentives for obsessive monitoring, emotional volatility, and compulsive behavior. The mental‑health risks associated with this kind of constant, news‑driven wagering are well documented. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, approximately 60 percent of people with gambling problems report anxiety disorders, and nearly 50 percent report major depressive symptoms. Young adults are particularly vulnerable: research published in Addictive Behaviors shows that individuals aged 18–24 are two to three times more likely to develop gambling addiction than older adults, and online platforms dramatically increase the speed and severity of harm because of their 24/7 accessibility and rapid betting cycles. Prediction markets replicate every known risk factor for gambling disorder—fast‑moving prices, unpredictable outcomes, and the psychological pressure to stay constantly engaged with political or social developments. The Commission’s questions about manipulation, inside information, and public interest are not abstract concerns; they are directly tied to the mental‑health consequences of tying personal financial outcomes to unpredictable real‑world events. When people feel financially and emotionally invested in political outcomes, it amplifies stress, polarization, and compulsive behavior. Encouraging users to submit AI‑generated praise to regulators only underscores how little these platforms are prepared to confront the harm they cause. For these reasons, I urge the Commission to take seriously the mental‑health and consumer‑protection risks associated with prediction markets and to consider strong regulatory action, including prohibiting retail access to these products.
