Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Mitchell Abbott, and Im a business owner from North Carolina. Im writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I actively trade on platforms like Kalshi, and I strongly support well-regulated prediction markets because they provide real value to people like me and to society as a whole.
As someone running a business, I rely on accurate information to make decisions. Prediction markets have consistently given me better forecasts on elections and other public events than polls or pundits. Ive seen firsthand how the prices on these platforms cut through the noise and offer insights I cant get elsewhere. Beyond that, they help me hedge risks that impact my business. For instance, trading on election outcomes or economic policy events lets me offset potential financial hits from changes in taxes or regulations. This isnt just play money for me; its a practical tool.
I also love the thrill of trading on Kalshi. Its fun to analyze the market, trust my gut, and often come out right. And when I do, Kalshi pays me for it! But this isnt gambling. It takes research and judgment, much like any other investment. Labeling event contracts as gaming ignores the real economic purpose they serve, like price discovery and risk management. I believe the CFTC should recognize this distinction.
On the regulatory side, I understand there are concerns about manipulation or insider trading, and I appreciate the need for consumer protection. But the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle these issues in other markets, and those can be applied here. Banning or overly restricting prediction markets doesnt solve the problem; it just punishes honest participants like me and pushes activity to unregulated offshore platforms. Id much rather trade on a safe, CFTC-regulated market. In response to questions 7 and 8 under Public Interest, I think the balance between innovation and protection lies in targeted rules, not broad categorical bans. And to questions 29 and 30 on inside information, I believe the existing laws against insider trading are enough if enforced properly.
I also want the U.S. to stay competitive in financial innovation. We should be leading on this, not letting other countries take the reins. Proportionate regulation that addresses specific risks makes more sense than sweeping prohibitions. Academic research backs this up too, showing how prediction markets improve information for everyone, from regular folks to policymakers.
I urge the CFTC to support well-regulated prediction markets with clear, fair rules. Dont shut down or over-restrict these valuable tools. They help people like me make better decisions, manage risks, and participate in a transparent, legal market. Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Abbott
