Comment Text:
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
My name is Daniel Munoz, and I'm a student from Pennsylvania. I'm writing to share my thoughts on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets, as published in 91 FR 12516. I've been trading on platforms like Kalshi for a while now, and I strongly support the idea of well-regulated prediction markets. I believe they offer unique value to individuals like me, as well as to businesses and society at large, and I hope the CFTC will craft rules that allow these markets to thrive under fair oversight.
As a student, I don't have a huge budget, but trading on prediction markets has given me a way to engage with real-world events in a meaningful way. It's not just about making a few bucks; it's about understanding how economic and political outcomes affect my life, from tuition costs to job prospects after graduation. I've used these markets to hedge against uncertainties, like potential changes in student loan policies tied to election outcomes. This isn't gambling, it's a practical tool. I put in the time to research and make informed decisions, just like I would with any other investment.
I also see how prediction markets often predict outcomes better than polls or pundits. I've noticed their forecasts on elections and economic indicators are usually sharper, and that kind of information helps everyone, not just traders. It bugs me when people call this "gaming." Event contracts have a clear economic purpose, whether it's hedging risks or discovering what the crowd really thinks. Classifying them as gambling misses the point, and I'm glad the CFTC is taking a fresh look at this in questions 15 through 22 of the ANPR.
I'm also worried about what happens if these markets get banned or over-restricted. I've seen unregulated offshore platforms out there, and they're nowhere near as safe or transparent as a regulated market like Kalshi. Pushing activity offshore, as mentioned in questions 7 through 14 on public interest, would hurt regular folks like me who want to participate legally. The US should be leading on financial innovation, not letting other countries take over this space. Plus, informed trading, as discussed in questions 29 through 32, actually makes prices more accurate and benefits everyone in the market.
I get that there are concerns about manipulation or insider trading, but the CFTC already has strong tools to tackle those issues. I don't think broad bans are the answer. Targeted, proportionate rules make more sense than shutting down entire categories of contracts. Focus on enforcing existing laws rather than punishing all of us for the actions of a few bad actors.
I urge the CFTC to support prediction markets with fair, balanced regulation that lets regular people participate in legal, safe environments. Please don't ban or over-restrict these valuable tools. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Daniel Munoz
