Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Connor Kolodziejski, and I'm just a regular 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 have real value for people like me and for society as a whole. I strongly support regulating them in a fair and balanced way, rather than restricting or banning them.
I've always found prediction markets to be a unique tool for getting information you can't find anywhere else. Honestly, their forecasts have been way more accurate than what you hear from polls or pundits on TV. I remember checking a market last year on an election outcome, and it gave me a clearer picture than any news segment. That kind of insight isn't just helpful for traders; it's useful for anyone trying to understand what's really happening. Plus, as someone who worries about personal financial risks, like how policy changes might hit my budget, I see these markets as a way to hedge against uncertainty. It's not gambling to me. It's a practical way to protect myself.
I also think the US needs to stay competitive in financial innovation. If we over-regulate or shut down prediction markets, we're just pushing activity to unregulated offshore platforms where there's no oversight. I'd much rather see a platform like Kalshi, which operates under CFTC rules, thrive here at home. Regulation done right keeps things safe and keeps the US in the lead. On top of that, academic research backs this up. I've read about studies showing how these markets aggregate information better than other methods. That transparency and data should be encouraged, not stifled.
Addressing some of your specific questions, like those in the Public Interest section (Questions 7-14), I believe the CFTC can balance innovation with consumer protection by using the robust tools you already have. You don't need to reinvent the wheel to prevent manipulation or insider trading; those powers are already in place for other markets and can work here too. And in response to questions on Classification and Costs-Benefits (Questions 33-40), I urge you to consider how over-regulation could hurt small participants like me while doing little to stop bad actors who'll just go elsewhere.
I get that there are concerns about misuse, and those shouldn't be ignored. But banning or overly restricting prediction markets isn't the answer. It would just punish regular folks who benefit from them. Instead, I ask you to support proportionate regulation that targets specific risks without shutting down the whole system. Let's keep these markets accessible, safe, and under US oversight.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Connor Kolodziejski
