Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is James Parsons, and I'm just an everyday citizen from Massachusetts writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). I've been actively trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I feel strongly that these markets should be supported with fair, proportionate regulation rather than heavy restrictions or bans.
I support prediction markets because they offer something unique. The prices on these platforms often predict outcomes better than polls or pundits, and that kind of insight is valuable to everyone, not just traders like me. I've seen firsthand how these markets help people make sense of uncertainty, whether it's an election result or an economic policy shift. They're also a tool for hedging real risks. For instance, Ive used Kalshi to offset potential impacts from policy changes that could affect my personal finances, like tax hikes or interest rate moves. This isn't gambling; it takes research and judgment, much like trading stocks or commodities. Classifying event contracts as "gaming" feels like a misstep to me when they serve clear economic purposes.
I'm also worried about what happens if we over-restrict these markets. Regulated platforms like Kalshi are safe and transparent, with oversight to prevent abuse. If we ban or limit them too much, people will just turn to unregulated offshore sites, which are far riskier and harder to monitor. The U.S. should be leading the way in financial innovation, not pushing activity to other countries. I think the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle issues like manipulation and insider trading in other markets, and those can work here too. Banning entire categories of contracts to stop a few bad actors punishes the rest of us who use these markets responsibly.
On some of the specific questions in the ANPR, Id like to weigh in on a couple. For Question 15 under Listed Activities, about defining gaming versus legitimate markets, I believe event contracts should be seen as economic tools for hedging and price discovery, not games of chance. And for Question 7 under Public Interest, I think allowing informed trading actually helps everyone by making prices more accurate, benefiting the broader public with better information.
I also value the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets like these. Letting everyday folks like me trade alongside bigger players makes the system fairer and the data richer. I just hope the CFTC will focus on targeted rules for specific risks rather than broad prohibitions that could stifle this space.
Thank you for considering my input. I urge you to support well-regulated prediction markets with proportionate rules that address real concerns without shutting down a valuable tool for so many of us.
Sincerely,
James Parsons
