Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Rusty Minick, and I'm just an everyday citizen from Oklahoma writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I'm not an expert or a big-time trader, but I believe prediction markets have real value for people like me, and I want to see them regulated in a fair way, not banned or over-restricted.
I'm pretty new to prediction markets, but I've been following them lately because I think they offer something unique. The forecasts they produce, especially on elections and public events, seem to cut through a lot of the noise you hear on TV or social media. I've seen how these markets can predict outcomes better than polls or pundits, and that kind of information helps me make sense of what's happening in the world. It's not just useful for traders; it's helpful for anyone trying to understand what's likely to happen next. An informed public opinion matters, and I think these markets play a part in that by giving regular folks a clearer picture of events that affect our lives.
One thing I'm worried about is the idea of classifying event contracts as "gaming." I don't see them that way at all. To me, trading on these markets isn't like pulling a slot machine lever. It takes research and judgment, just like investing in stocks or other financial tools. These contracts serve a real purpose, whether it's figuring out the odds of a policy change or an election result. They help people prepare for the future, and that's economic value, not gambling. I hope the CFTC sees it that way too.
Looking at some of the specific questions in the ANPR, I want to address Question 15 on how to define gaming versus legitimate markets. I think the focus should be on whether the contract helps people understand or manage real-world risks, not on whether it feels like a "bet." If it's providing useful information or a way to hedge uncertainty, it shouldn't be lumped in with casino games. Also, regarding Question 7 on balancing innovation and consumer protection, I believe the CFTC can protect people by enforcing existing laws against manipulation and insider trading without shutting down these markets altogether.
I know there are concerns about bad actors or misuse, and I get that. But banning or over-restricting prediction markets punishes everyone instead of targeting the problem. The CFTC already has tools to go after fraud or manipulation. Use those instead of broad restrictions.
I'm asking you to support proportionate regulation of prediction markets. Keep them accessible to regular people like me while addressing specific risks with targeted rules. Don't let fear of a few bad apples spoil something that can benefit so many of us in understanding our world better.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Rusty Minick
