Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Iayan Ali, and Im a student from Texas with a strong interest in economics and public policy. Im writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (91 FR 12516). As someone who actively trades on platforms like Kalshi, I believe prediction markets offer unique value to society, and I urge the CFTC to support their growth through fair and proportionate regulation.
Ive seen firsthand how prediction markets provide information thats just not available elsewhere. For elections and other public events, their forecasts are often more accurate than polls or pundits. Ive used these platforms to better understand the likelihood of outcomes that affect my community and studies, and I know many others rely on this data too. Its not just about trading; its about having access to real, aggregated insights. As a student, I also value the academic potential here. Prediction markets generate transparent data that researchers like me can analyze to understand public sentiment and decision-making. This isnt gambling. Its a tool for learning and discovery, and classifying event contracts as gaming ignores their legitimate economic purpose.
Im also concerned about freedom and fairness. These markets let regular people like me participate in a system thats often dominated by big institutions. Banning or over-restricting them would push activity to unregulated offshore platforms, which helps no one. The U.S. should be leading in financial innovation, not falling behind other countries. We have a chance to set a global standard, and I hope the CFTC takes it.
On the topic of risks, I get the concerns about manipulation or insider trading. But the CFTC already has strong tools to address these issues in other markets. Why not adapt those for prediction markets instead of imposing broad bans? I think your questions 7 and 8 on balancing innovation with consumer protection, as well as question 29 on insider information, get to the heart of this. Targeted rules can address bad actors without punishing everyone else. A heavy-handed approach would stifle something valuable.
I also want to touch on question 15 about defining gaming. These contracts arent games of chance; they require research and judgment, just like any investment. Treating them as gambling would set a bad precedent and limit their potential to inform public decision-making through price discovery.
Please consider proportionate regulation that allows prediction markets to thrive while addressing specific risks. Dont let broad restrictions or categorical bans shut down a system that benefits students, researchers, and everyday citizens like me. Thank you for taking the time to read my perspective.
Sincerely,
Iayan Ali
