1. United States
2. Tenn.
3. Letter

Oppose Prediction Markets That Profit from Human Suffering I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the rise of prediction markets—platforms that allow people to place bets on events ranging from weather patterns to the escalation of war. While these platforms may seem like harmless gambling, they cross a moral line when they enable betting on human suffering. Currently, people can place bets on when a ceasefire might end, how many civilians might be killed in a conflict, or whether a particular act of violence will occur. This is not hypothetical. During the war on Gaza and the escalating conflict in Iran, prediction markets have allowed users to speculate on death tolls, the timing of military strikes, and other outcomes that involve real human lives. This is deeply immoral. Betting on whether more civilians will die or whether a war will expand reduces human tragedy to a gambling opportunity. It normalizes violence, desensitizes us to suffering, and creates financial incentives to hope for worse outcomes. Prediction markets also raise serious legal and ethical questions. Are they gambling? Are they manipulating public perception of events? Do they create conflicts of interest for those with inside information who could bet on outcomes they influence? I am not opposed to all prediction markets. Betting on the Oscars or sports outcomes is one thing. But betting on war, civilian deaths, or humanitarian crises is something else entirely. I urge you to: 1. Investigate the extent to which prediction markets allow betting on human suffering, including war and civilian casualties. 2. Support legislation that explicitly prohibits betting on armed conflicts, civilian death tolls, and other outcomes involving loss of life. 3. Ensure that any regulatory framework for prediction markets includes clear moral boundaries that treat human life as more than a gambling line. Profit should never be made from predicting how many people will die. I urge you to act.