Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Matthew Martinez, and I'm just an everyday citizen from Illinois writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've used prediction markets a few times myself, and I believe they serve an important purpose. I strongly support regulating them in a fair and proportionate way, rather than banning or overly restricting them.
I first got into prediction markets because I wanted better information about elections and other public events. Polls and pundits are often wrong, but the prices on these markets seem to cut through the noise. That kind of forecasting isn't just helpful for me, it's valuable for everyone, from regular folks to policymakers. Beyond that, I see real potential for hedging risks that affect my personal finances. For example, an election outcome or a policy change could impact my taxes or costs as a consumer. Being able to hedge against that uncertainty feels like a practical tool, not a game. I don't think event contracts should be classified as gaming. They have legitimate economic purposes, like price discovery and risk management, just like other investments.
I'm also concerned that over-restricting or banning these markets would push activity offshore to unregulated platforms. I've read about places like Kalshi operating under CFTC oversight, and that seems much safer than driving people to sketchy foreign sites with no protections. I'd rather see the U.S. lead on this and keep things transparent and accountable here at home. Plus, I value the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets as an individual. Locking regular people out while big institutions get access doesn't seem fair, and it keeps the best information out of reach for the rest of us.
I know there are worries about manipulation or insider trading, and I get that those are real risks. But the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle those issues in other markets. I believe those same powers can be applied to prediction markets without needing to shut them down or impose harsh bans. A few bad actors shouldn't mean punishing everyone else. In response to some of your specific questions, like those in Topic Area B on public interest (Questions 7-14), I think the benefits of innovation and better information outweigh the risks if regulation is done right. And on Topic Area C about listed activities (Questions 15-22), I urge you not to treat these contracts as gaming but as tools for hedging and discovery.
I hope you'll consider my perspective and support a balanced approach to regulating prediction markets. Let's keep them legal and accessible under fair rules, not push them away or ban them outright.
Sincerely,
Matthew Martinez
