Comment on CFTC-2026-1189, CFTC-2026-1189-0001, Primev, Inc.

Primev supports the Commission's proposed amendments to 17 CFR Part 40. The proposal gets the big questions right: it focuses on the underlying event rather than the act of trading, treats "gaming" as playing a game rather than as betting, drops the old economic-purpose test, avoids blanket bans, and lets contracts trade unless the Commission affirmatively acts. We suggest a few clarifications so the rule does not accidentally sweep in a category it was not aimed at: short, fast-settling contracts that pay out based on the measurable state of a live event, not the action of any one participant. - The "discrete-action" factor should turn on control, not on who executes the outcome. The Commission's stated concern is that a single identified participant could determine the result, hold private information about it, or be tempted to influence it. That fits an action a participant can plan and control in advance. It does not fit outcomes that arise in the ordinary course of play and settle on objective data even when play involves identifiable participants, and even when a situation emerges naturally rather than being chosen (a participant cannot elect to create it; it results from the collective flow of play). The concern is reduced further where a contract does not exist as a standing market but comes into being in response to an in-play development and settles within that same passage of play, leaving no window to pre-arrange positions. We recommend the final rule make clear this factor applies only where a single identified participant has the practical ability to predetermine the settling outcome and not to every contract whose outcome involves a participant's action. Finally that strong safeguards (barring participants and insiders from trading, real-time surveillance, and position limits) weigh against a finding of concern in the remaining cases. - "Objective settlement data" should include independent measurement, not just data controlled by organizers. The rule rewards contracts that settle on objective data and lists "league-verified" as one example. Independent, automated measurement is often more objective and harder to manipulate than a discretionary official's call. We urge the Commission to clarify that independent data qualifies on its own, so markets are not forced to rely on data the organizers control; which would mainly benefit the largest incumbents, a competition concern the Commission's own analysis flags. - Fast-settling contracts should be judged as a stream, not one at a time. A single contract that resolves in seconds can look trivial alone, but a continuous series of them produces a live, real-time read on an event that downstream users rely on. Consistent with the proposal's own instruction to consider contracts in the aggregate, we recommend the Commission judge these as a connected set, and make clear that fast settlement by itself does not count against a contract. Faster settlement also limits how much anyone can lose on a position and shrinks the window for manipulation. - What makes a contract hard to manipulate is its structure, not its length. A contract is safer when many participants influence the outcome, when it settles on hard data, and when there is little time to make arrangements. This activity already happens on unregulated offshore venues with no oversight; allowing well-designed, supervised, data-settled versions onshore keeps it visible and protected rather than pushing it abroad; a result the proposal's offshore-migration factor supports. We also support the Commission's suggestion to pre-approve defined categories of event contracts under CEA Section 4(c), which would give responsible innovators a workable path. We thank the Commission for a thoughtful, innovation-minded proposal. Best regards, Murat Akdeniz, CEO, Primev