Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Andrew Tucker, and I'm just an everyday citizen from Texas writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been actively trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I strongly support the idea of well-regulated prediction markets. I believe they provide real value to people like me, and I hope the CFTC will create rules that allow these markets to thrive while addressing any valid concerns.
I first got into prediction markets because I wanted better information about elections and other public events that affect my life. I've found that the forecasts on these platforms are often way more accurate than what I hear from polls or pundits on TV. That kind of insight helps me make personal decisions, like planning my budget around potential policy changes. Beyond that, I use these markets to hedge real risks. For instance, Ive placed trades to offset uncertainties tied to federal decisions that could impact my taxes or costs as a Texan dealing with volatile energy prices. This isnt gambling to me. Its using research and judgment, much like investing in stocks, to protect myself financially.
Im also a big believer in the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. Platforms like Kalshi, under CFTC oversight, are far safer than unregulated offshore alternatives. If we ban or over-restrict these markets, people like me will just get pushed to less safe venues with no consumer protections. The US should be leading in financial innovation, not handing that advantage to other countries. Plus, the CFTC already has strong tools to stop manipulation and insider trading in other markets. Those same tools can work here without needing broad bans that punish everyone for the actions of a few bad actors.
Id like to address a couple of specific questions from the ANPR. On Question 7, regarding public interest, I think prediction markets serve the public by improving price discovery and giving everyone access to better information for decision-making. On Question 15, about defining gaming versus legitimate markets, I strongly feel event contracts arent gambling. They serve real economic purposes like hedging and forecasting, and labeling them as gaming ignores their value. And on Question 29, about inside information, I believe informed trading actually helps make prices more accurate, benefiting all participants, as long as existing laws against insider trading are enforced.
I understand there are concerns about manipulation or misuse, but the answer isnt to shut these markets down. Proportionate, targeted regulation can address specific risks without killing innovation or access for regular folks like me. I urge the CFTC to support well-regulated prediction markets and avoid overly restrictive rules or broad categorical bans.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Andrew Tucker
