Jason, thanks for your hard work on this issue. Your 7-page letter to the CFTC is a master document. —- (PDF file)
What makes you think that your proposals will create more freedom for our prediction exchanges than the CFTC’-s proposals?
Could you point to specific instances to us where you think that your input is more libertarian than the CFTC way? After all, your proposals contain many “-don’-t do that, and forbid that”- things. 
–
Thanks. Do you mean “the economists’” instead of “the CFTC”?. If so, I think our proposals are compatible. In general, a public interest exemption is the most likely outcome since it’s the path of least resistance with respect to jurisdictional decisions by the CFTC. Regarding the economists’ specific proposal, I have to say that I do not like their “other qualifications” suggestion as applied to non-profits and academics, nor their small-stakes recommendation as it does violence to large tax-related risks people already have. In those ways my proposal is more comprehensive and less restrictive, though as a matter of pragmatism I do propose many restrictions.
.
Of course, things like manipulation would take care of themselves in the long run — the same way that replacing public with private police forces should, as David Friedman and others argue. But I am a libertarian, but not an anarcho-capitalist. Incidentally, I am tempted to argue that being able to hedge one’s taxes is a more relevant modern right, yet very much in the same spirit, as the second amendment.
@Jason Ruspini: No, I didn’t mean the economists’ petition —I meant the CFTC’s opinion, if it’s possible to sense that at this point.
–
But thanks for your comment.
–
Next thing is to compare your proposals with Tom Bell’s ones.