Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is John Ramirez, and I'm a regular citizen from New Jersey writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been using prediction markets for a while now to help manage risks that affect my personal finances, and I strongly support the idea of having these markets regulated in a fair and balanced way.
I rely on prediction markets to hedge against uncertainties, like election outcomes that could impact my taxes or small business costs. The information I get from these platforms is often more accurate than what I see from polls or pundits on TV. I've noticed time and again that the prices on these markets reflect what's really likely to happen, not just what people hope or guess. This isn't just helpful for me; it's valuable for everyone, from regular folks to policymakers, who need better data to make decisions. I believe this ties directly to your questions 7 and 8 in the ANPR about the public interest and price discovery benefits of event contracts.
I'm also a firm believer in the freedom to participate in legal, regulated markets. Platforms like Kalshi, which operate under CFTC oversight, are far safer than unregulated offshore alternatives. If we ban or over-restrict these markets, people like me won't just stop; we'll be pushed to less secure venues with no protections. I'd much rather see the U.S. lead in financial innovation and set the standard for how these markets should work, rather than letting other countries take the reins. This speaks to questions 11 and 12 in your notice about balancing innovation with consumer protection.
I want to be clear that I don't see event contracts as gambling. They serve real economic purposes, like hedging risks and discovering prices. Calling them gaming would be like calling stock trading gaming, and I urge you to consider this in relation to questions 15 and 16 on defining legitimate market activities. On the flip side, I understand concerns about manipulation or insider trading, but the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle those issues. Banning whole categories of contracts to stop a few bad actors feels like overkill. Targeted, proportionate rules make more sense to me, as discussed in questions 29 through 32 on inside information and informed trading. After all, informed traders often improve price discovery, which helps everyone.
I appreciate the chance to weigh in on this. Prediction markets are a powerful tool for people like me, and I hope the CFTC will support their growth with sensible regulation, not heavy-handed restrictions. Please focus on protecting consumers through oversight while letting these markets thrive.
Sincerely,
John Ramirez
