On their proposed change for regulating event contracts on gaming.
Among other things, the proposal would define the term “gaming” for purposes of CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and CFTC Regulation 40.11, and would provide illustrative examples of “gaming,” such as staking or risking something of value on the outcome of a political contest, an awards contest, or a game in which one or more athletes compete, or on an occurrence or non-occurrence in connection with such a contest or game. The proposal would also include a determination that event contracts involving each of the activities enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) (gaming, war, terrorism, assassination, and activity that is unlawful under any Federal or State law) are, as a category, contrary to the public interest and therefore may not be listed for trading or accepted for clearing on or through a CFTC-registered entity. From: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8927-24
CEO of Manifold, play money prediction markets
130,000 markets, 10M bets, 50k users
Cases where proposed “gaming” contracts could be in the public interest:
Conditional prediction markets on who is elected to inform voters of which candidate they prefer
Subjective personal markets: Will I be satisfied by X’s presidency? Will I vote for my representive again in two years?
Free response markets
Scientific & technological contests
Explosion of creativity. Massive opportunity for innovation is being blocked.
It’s not even possible for you to come up with all the cases of how much good this could do. The public interest thus demands you allow it, and then check for abuse.
You mention needing to play “election cop” and judge the result of elections if .
Manifest conference. Charitable funding. Demand from users.
Lack of clarity on event contracts, defacto banned, unless you can afford as many lawyers as Kalshi. CFTC seems to be playing favorites in allowing only some companies the ability to run legally.