Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Charlie Ford, and I'm a trader and investor based in Texas. I've been actively trading on prediction markets like Kalshi for a while now, and I'm writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I strongly support the idea of well-regulated prediction markets, and I hope my perspective as someone who uses these platforms can help shape a balanced approach.
I rely on prediction markets for insights that I just can't get from polls or pundits. Time and again, I've seen platforms like Kalshi deliver forecasts on elections and public events that are more accurate than traditional sources. This isn't just useful for me as a trader; it helps everyone by providing better information for decision-making. Whether it's figuring out the likelihood of a policy change or an economic shift, these markets aggregate real-world knowledge in a way nothing else does. I believe this ties directly to your questions on public interest and price discovery in Topic Area B, specifically Questions 7 and 9. The value of this information shouldn't be underestimated.
I'm also a big believer in the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. As a Texan who values individual choice, I see it as a positive that regular folks like me can engage in these markets, not just big institutions. But I get the concern about consumer protection, which is why I think regulation under the CFTC is the way to go. Platforms like Kalshi are far safer than unregulated offshore alternatives. If you ban or over-restrict prediction markets, you're not stopping the activity; you're just pushing it to sketchy places with no oversight. I'd urge you to consider this in relation to Question 14 about balancing innovation and protection.
Another point I want to make is that event contracts aren't gambling. They serve real economic purposes. I use them to hedge risks tied to political or economic outcomes that affect my investments. For instance, I've traded contracts related to election results that could impact tax policies affecting my portfolio. This is no different from hedging commodity prices or interest rates. I think this speaks to Questions 15 and 16 in Topic Area C about defining legitimate markets versus gaming. These aren't games of chance; they take research and judgment.
Lastly, I know there are worries about manipulation and insider trading. But the CFTC already has solid tools to tackle those issues, just as you do for other derivatives. Banning markets to stop a few bad actors makes no sense when you can target the problem directly. And honestly, the U.S. should be leading the charge on financial innovation, not letting other countries take the reins. This connects to Questions 29 and 30 in Topic Area E on insider information and market integrity.
I ask that you support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Don't ban or over-restrict them. Keep them safe and accessible under CFTC oversight so people like me can continue to benefit from their unique value.
Sincerely,
Charlie Ford
