Interviews
Exclusive Q&A with Sujit Unni, Chief Technology Officer at Paysafe
How important are payment methods and speed of payment processing important for customer experience in online sports betting?
We talked with Sujit Unni, Chief Technology Officer at Paysafe, which had conducted a survey among US punters. He provided insightful and detailed answers on this and several other questions.
Read on for some fascinating perspectives on the past, present and future of the payment process and its role in online sports betting.
Q. Let’s start with the recent survey that Paysafe conducted among US sports bettors. What are the key takeaways from the survey?
A. Here are some of the conclusions we came to after surveying sports bettors in eight regulated US states:
Available payment methods influence players’ decision to use a brand: To fully capitalize on the growing opportunity of online sports betting, sportsbook operators should strongly focus on the player experience at the checkout. The payment methods that are available and the security of said methods are critical for players when it comes to evaluating which brand they choose to place their bets with.
Transaction security factors highly into choice of sportsbook: When asked to identify which criterion was most important when depositing funds with a sports-betting brand, bettors said the security of the transaction was more important than any other characteristic.
Easy and fast payments are critical: Just as important to players is the speed and ease with which they receive their winnings when they wish to cash out. According to four fifths (79%) of US sports bettors we surveyed, they have a negative impression of the sportsbook when their expectations related to cash out speeds aren’t met. This can result in the sportsbook taking a large reputation hit. A poor reputation spreads among players and can result in a significant brake on its growth.
The online sportsbooks themselves must be fast and efficient: It’s important to make sure the sportsbook’s payment platform is moving quickly and efficiently. The easier it is for a player to access payouts, the more likely they will be to continue using the platform. Those who adapt to these demands will position themselves well for significant growth.
Q. Everybody talks about the speed of payments. How does speed factor into the mobile process as a whole, and how does it contribute to the overall success of an online business, especially an iGaming business?
A. iGaming is changing more rapidly right now than ever before. Mobile’s role in this evolution is huge, given apps’ potential for speed and the strong relationship we’re able to build with end-users: We’re right there, in their pockets, whenever they pick up their phone.
But proximity alone is not enough. End-users will grow bored or burnt out if their experiences are slow, or if we’re not constantly offering new experiences and improving what’s already available.
Increasing the speed of our processes and the user experience is critical in that every second of load time anywhere within the app literally costs every company money, especially in iGaming, which is less of a considered purchase than traditional mobile shopping or eCommerce. iGaming customers are making fluid, real-time decisions; the more time they have to wait to get to the next step, the less patient they become and the more likely they are to drop off.
Speed is a function of many factors, and there are a number of processes that power the payments experience. We work with mobile DevOps platform Bitrise to increase the speed of all of the mobile processes that power the user experiences leading up to and including payments, as well as the behind-the-scenes operational processes that influence our ability to release updates to the app stores more frequently and faster.
The payments part of the mobile process is a particularly expensive place to be slow. Out-pacing competitors in that process is what’s creating the winners in this space.
Q. What are the ways by which Paysafe tries to accelerate its mobile processes and e-payments?
A. If you look at it from a very high level, the two primary ways we accelerate our processes and e-payments are through having the best talent and technology.
We stay competitive on the talent side by attracting and – just as importantly –
retaining the best people in the world in this space. We have been able to build on their expertise to constantly improve the speed at which we deliver value for merchants and consumers alike.
When you are investing in this level of talent, it’s important that you are not wasting their skills on things like troubleshooting, waiting around hours to test builds, or doing manual fixes to problems that could be automated. So, on the technology side, our mobile engineering teams use Bitrise to test all new code, reduce build times from hours to minutes, identify issues that might interfere with the user experience, and so on, before submitting releases to the app stores.
Our goal is to always do everything as fast as possible, without sacrificing our standards of quality and security.
Q. It looks like the ‘slow and steady’ will not win the races anymore. But could the focus on speed–especially in payment processing–be detrimental to the fraud-prevention measures?
A. Building on my last answer, it’s imperative to not sacrifice security to save time. I will say that one of the upsides of investing in technology like Bitrise is that it allows us to get the best of both worlds: Speed and security. In our mobile engineering processes, for example, Bitrise allows us to automatically run a number of security tests and checks that were previously slow, manual labour. Now they take up less time, are more consistently executed, and actually free up the team to work on innovations for our merchants and consumers. That’s not to say that there aren’t manual checks involved anymore, but those are fewer and more meaningful.
Q. Could you talk about the recent innovations that Paysafe brought to the payments ecosystem?
A. Given the nature of our business we are constantly evolving our value proposition and anchor around our philosophy of customer outcomes. We tend to think of innovation around key pillars including:
- Evolving our business to be a true cloud-based platform that supports multi-sided markets. This allows existing customers and merchants to access new features and stay engaged with our platform. The recent introduction of Openbucks, a product that allows store gift cards to be used at point of sale at other merchants in the Paysafe network, benefits customers who can now use restricted gift cards across a wider merchant base, and allows our merchants to accept a non-traditional payment method.
- Building out hybrid-business models with the wider finance eco-system through the launch of capabilities like pop-up banking with traditional banks like TSB. While serving as a revenue stream, this also allows banks like TSB to optimize their branch footprint and enables customers to access simple transactions using the Paysafe network.
We have also spearheaded a suite of embedded finance offerings with partners like Amazon and Google. Our offerings of cash to digital, digital wallets and processor agnostic payment methods makes us one of the few firms that can offer industry specific open loop and closed loop solutions.
Q. Allow me now to bring a customer perspective. What benefits do companies, especially those in the iGaming sector, gain from integrating the accelerated payment solutions of Paysafe?
A. Given our “born in gaming” origins, we believe we are one of the few payment platforms in the market that has a full suite of solutions to support both store based and online operators. This means our combination of brick and mortar, wallet, and cash solutions allow customers to seamlessly transact and play across the in-store and online offerings of our gaming merchants.
Solutions like our single integration API give our gaming merchants access to payment processing platforms that are accessible in multiple geographies through different processors, a host of local payment methods and a global network of banks. This in effect improves the customer experience and reduces revenue losses from declined transactions.
Effective risk and fraud management is a key differentiator, given the deep expertise and geographical coverage we provide the industry. Our investment in our risk and fraud infrastructure protects both merchants and customers while ensuring a seamless payments experience.
Q. The new technologies in the payment space have blurred the boundaries of national currencies to an extent. What are your thoughts on the influence of the laws and regulations of different countries on the growth of payment processes, especially for a highly regulated industry like iGaming?
A. The world is definitely a smaller place from a payments perspective today than it was five or six years back, largely enabled by the rapid adoption of disruptive technologies like blockchain, API driven ecosystems, and standardization of messaging services.
Like any financial service, payments are heavily influenced by regulation – and fortunately in a good way for the most part. Governments have been quick at recognizing how critical a scalable and democratized payments infrastructure is to drive economic growth and, as a result, we see regulation being enacted in in many markets. This is helping build out global payment ecosystems – for instance, UPI in India, Open Banking in Europe, or FedNow in the US. As this ecosystem continues to evolve, we see the emergence of trends like pay by bank and local payment methods continuing to grab market share from the card schemes, which will benefit both consumers and merchants.
iGaming is still in its infancy and, in certain markets like the US, can ride this wave of an open payments ecosystem to provide a far superior experience to its customers. Regulation in gaming is still evolving and it will look to more mature markets in Europe for insight as it starts to put in place legislation for the industry. Paysafe is leveraging its established presence in the EU to bring insight and product offerings to the US market that allow our gaming partners to not only grow their business in line with established legislation but also to build and offer products that consider future legislation that we think could be enacted.
Q. What is your take on the growth of mobile payments over the last few years?
A. Smartphones are a part of our daily lives today and are to a large degree considered indispensable. In the few years leading up to the pandemic, we were already seeing steady growth in mobile payments. The onset of the pandemic accelerated that growth by as much as 75% in some segments.
Some of the key drivers are:
The influence of digital transformation: As industry sectors, particularly financial services, have increasingly been disrupted and transformed, the mobile phone has emerged as an important customer engagement channel. As customer behavior matured to using mobile phones as a transaction medium, the need to support payments drove adoption.
The rise of emerging digital economies: The other big influence was the rise of emerging economies. India, for example, had a head start in becoming a digital economy with its population armed with mobile phones before they even had access to desktop computers. Countries like India that are supported by digital friendly government regulations, have a large unbanked population and an industry that’s very willing to provide payment and banking solutions, witnessed exponential growth in mobile payments.
Apps, wallets, and subscription services: As the number of apps hosted on Apple and Android platforms grew, people are increasingly using mobile phones to purchase a range of services, from buying tickets to ordering rides and subscription services. This adoption led to the creation of a full payment supportive ecosystem, including wallets (Apple Pay, Google Pay, and our own Skrill digital wallet, among others) and emerging payments volumes driven by a growing library of subscription services.
Payments continue to become easy and reliable: Having a credit or a debit card used to be the only way to make a payment on a mobile phone. However, payments have evolved to keep up with the emerging digital landscape. Today beyond these traditional payment methods, customers can pay with their bank accounts, cash, and by using over 200 local payment methods specific to geographies –which has democratized payments. That coupled with regulation to promote open banking systems and reliable real-time payments as well as faster payment infrastructure has helped drive the surge of mobile payments.
Increasingly secure and safe transactions: Wherever there is a financial transaction there is also the risk of fraud. Because of this, mobile phones have evolved to continually make transactions both convenient and safe. Whether it’s by using face ID, biometrics or contactless payments, the ability of the manufacturers to deliver secure payments was critical in driving the wider adoption of mobile payments.
Q. Let’s conclude with something about the future. Could you reveal some of the changes that you foresee coming in the mobile space? What about the payments sector?
A. With app store operators seeing pressure from governments around the world to loosen their grips on the mobile ecosystem – especially in terms of payments – we expect to see some massive changes soon.
Alternative app stores that allow more app choices for end-users and more payment processing choices for app store publishers are benefitting both merchants and consumers.
Additionally, we expect the consumer’s need for speed to increase even further, widening the divide between those businesses that can deliver on this expectation and those that can’t.
We’re confident that, between the talent of our team and partners like Bitrise, we’ll land on the right side of that divide.
Powered by WPeMatico
Filipe Senna, sócio da Jantalia Advogados e secretário-geral da Comissão de Direito dos Jogos e Apostas da OAB/DF, analisa a recente decisão no Brasil de bloquear plataformas de mercado preditivo como Kalshi e Polymarket.
Ele argumenta que a medida reflete um passo regulatório necessário para sanar ambiguidades legais em um segmento que se situa entre ferramentas informativas, sistemas de apostas e derivativos financeiros, reforçando a necessidade de coerência e tratamento igualitário nos mercados regulamentados em constante evolução do Brasil.
Por Filipe Senna
O bloqueio de plataformas de mercado preditivo como Kalshi e Polymarket no Brasil, a partir de medida do Conselho Monetário Nacional (CMN) e de orientação da Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA), é juridicamente consistente e segue a mesma lógica já aplicada a operadores de apostas ilegais.
A decisão não nasce de um impulso restritivo, mas da necessidade de preservar a coerência de um mercado que passou a ser regulado de forma mais clara nos últimos anos.
Embora essas plataformas se apresentem como instrumentos de leitura da opinião pública, sua atuação prática vai além do caráter informacional.
Parte relevante dos produtos ofertados se aproxima, e em alguns casos se equipara, às apostas de quota fixa reguladas pela Lei nº 14.790/2023. Eventos esportivos disponibilizados nesses ambientes replicam dinâmicas semelhantes às chamadas bolsas de apostas, o que torna difícil sustentar uma distinção material entre um modelo e outro.
Há ainda um segundo ponto sensível. Algumas dessas plataformas oferecem instrumentos que se assemelham a derivativos financeiros, com ativos vinculados a preços de mercado.
Por operarem fora do país, não se submetem às exigências da Comissão de Valores Mobiliários. O resultado é uma assimetria regulatória relevante, na qual empresas estrangeiras competem em condições mais favoráveis do que operadores que seguem as regras brasileiras.
Nesse cenário, o bloqueio cumpre uma função de proteção institucional, ele resguarda tanto o mercado de apostas quanto o mercado financeiro de distorções concorrenciais.
Empresas que atuam no Brasil com autorização precisam cumprir obrigações rigorosas, que incluem recolhimento de tributos, políticas de prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro e mecanismos de proteção de dados.
Permitir que outras operem à margem dessas exigências compromete a isonomia do sistema.
A medida também tem caráter indutor. Caso essas plataformas desejem atuar no país, deverão se adequar ao enquadramento jurídico correspondente ao tipo de produto que oferecem.
Se a atividade se assemelha a apostas, deve seguir a regulação das bets. Se se aproxima de instrumentos financeiros, deve observar as regras aplicáveis a esse mercado. Trata-se de um princípio básico de organização econômica em setores regulados.
Não há violação à livre iniciativa. No ordenamento brasileiro, a liberdade econômica convive com a necessidade de cumprimento de regras, especialmente em atividades que envolvem risco financeiro e impacto social.
A atuação estatal, nesse contexto, busca garantir que a concorrência ocorra em bases legítimas, sem favorecimento indevido a quem opera fora da jurisdição nacional.
Existe, de fato, um componente informacional nesses ambientes. Mercados preditivos podem oferecer sinais úteis sobre expectativas coletivas.
O problema surge quando esse elemento convive com estruturas que reproduzem a lógica de apostas ou de produtos financeiros de alto risco.
Nesses casos, o usuário deixa de interagir apenas com informação e passa a assumir riscos típicos de jogos de azar ou de operações especulativas.
Um exemplo ajuda a ilustrar essa fronteira. Há mercados em que o participante precisa prever, em intervalos de 5 (cinco) minutos, a variação de ativos como o Bitcoin.
A dinâmica, embora apresentada como preditiva, se aproxima mais de jogos de azar ou de mecanismos semelhantes às antigas opções binárias, cuja natureza sempre esteve associada ao risco elevado e à ausência de proteção adequada ao usuário.
Diante dessa zona cinzenta, a postura adotada pelo regulador é prudente. Interromper a atividade permite aprofundar o debate, definir critérios mais claros e evitar que lacunas normativas sejam exploradas.
Só a partir dessa delimitação será possível discutir, com segurança jurídica, eventual regulamentação futura para esse tipo de plataforma.
O objetivo final é preservar um ambiente econômico equilibrado, em que inovação e livre iniciativa possam coexistir com regras claras. Sem isso, o risco não é apenas jurídico, mas também de credibilidade de todo o sistema.
Filipe Senna
Sócio do Jantalia Advogados e Secretário-Geral da Comissão de Direito dos Jogos e Apostas da OAB/DF. Autor do livro ‘A Regulação da Sorte na Internet’
The post A necessária contenção dos mercados preditivos no Brasil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Filipe Senna, Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF, analyzes the recent decision in Brazil to block predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
He argues that the measure reflects a necessary regulatory step to address legal ambiguities in a segment that sits between informational tools, betting systems, and financial derivatives, reinforcing the need for coherence and equal treatment within Brazil’s evolving regulated markets.
By Filipe Senna
The blocking of predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket in Brazil, following a measure by the National Monetary Council (CMN) and guidance from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA), is legally sound and follows the same logic already applied to illegal betting operators. The decision does not stem from a restrictive impulse, but rather from the need to preserve the coherence of a market that has become more clearly regulated in recent years.
Although these platforms present themselves as tools for gauging public opinion, their actual operation goes beyond an informational function. A significant portion of the products offered approaches—and in some cases is equivalent to—fixed-odds betting regulated under Law No. 14,790/2023. Sporting events made available in these environments replicate dynamics similar to so-called betting exchanges, making it difficult to sustain a material distinction between one model and another.
There is also a second sensitive issue. Some of these platforms offer instruments resembling financial derivatives, with assets linked to market prices. Because they operate outside the country, they are not subject to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The result is a relevant regulatory asymmetry, in which foreign companies compete under more favorable conditions than operators that comply with Brazilian rules.
In this context, the blocking fulfills an institutional protective function: it safeguards both the betting market and the financial market from competitive distortions. Companies operating in Brazil under authorization must comply with strict obligations, including tax payments, anti-money laundering policies, and data protection mechanisms. Allowing others to operate outside these requirements undermines the system’s fairness.
The measure also has an inducing character. If these platforms wish to operate in the country, they must adapt to the legal framework corresponding to the type of product they offer. If the activity resembles betting, it must follow betting regulations. If it approaches financial instruments, it must comply with the applicable rules for that market. This is a basic principle of economic organization in regulated sectors.
There is no violation of free enterprise. In the Brazilian legal system, economic freedom coexists with the need to comply with rules, especially in activities involving financial risk and social impact. State action, in this context, aims to ensure that competition occurs on legitimate grounds, without undue advantage for those operating outside national jurisdiction.
There is, in fact, an informational component in these environments. Predictive markets can provide useful signals about collective expectations. The problem arises when this element coexists with structures that replicate the logic of betting or high-risk financial products. In such cases, users no longer interact solely with information but instead assume risks typical of gambling or speculative operations.
An example helps illustrate this boundary. There are markets in which participants must predict, in 5-minute intervals, the variation of assets such as Bitcoin. Although presented as predictive, the dynamic is closer to gambling or mechanisms similar to the former binary options, whose nature has always been associated with high risk and insufficient user protection.
Faced with this gray area, the regulator’s stance is prudent. Suspending the activity allows for deeper debate, clearer criteria to be defined, and prevents regulatory gaps from being exploited. Only after such delimitation will it be possible to discuss, with legal certainty, any future regulation for this type of platform.
The ultimate goal is to preserve a balanced economic environment in which innovation and free enterprise can coexist with clear rules. Without this, the risk is not only legal, but also related to the credibility of the entire system.
Filipe Senna
Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF (Brazilian Bar Association, Federal District chapter). Author of the book ‘The Regulation of Luck on the Internet’.
The post The necessary containment of predictive markets in Brazil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Rafael Brunati y Celso Basílio, abogados de Silveiro Advogados especializados en mercados regulados, derecho corporativo y derecho de la competencia, analizan las recientes medidas adoptadas por el Consejo Monetario Nacional (CMN) de Brasil y la Secretaría de Premios y Apuestas (SPA/MF), así como su impacto en la industria del iGaming y las apuestas deportivas.
En este artículo, examinan cómo el nuevo marco regulatorio redefine los límites entre las apuestas, los instrumentos financieros y los modelos emergentes de mercados digitales, al tiempo que refuerza la Ley N.º 14.790/2023 como pilar central de la regulación del sector.
Por Rafael Brunati y Celso Basílio
El conjunto de medidas adoptadas recientemente por el Consejo Monetario Nacional (CMN) y la Secretaría de Premios y Apuestas del Ministerio de Hacienda (SPA/MF) representa un nuevo capítulo en la consolidación regulatoria del mercado brasileño de iGaming y apuestas deportivas.
Más que una respuesta puntual a los llamados mercados predictivos, las iniciativas señalan un intento más amplio de reorganizar los límites entre apuestas autorizadas, instrumentos financieros y actividades consideradas irregulares en el país.
La Resolución CMN N.º 5.298/2026 prohibió la oferta y negociación de derivados vinculados a apuestas, eventos deportivos, juegos en línea y temas políticos, electorales, culturales o de entretenimiento sin referencia económico-financiera.
En la misma línea, la Nota Técnica SPA/MF N.º 2.958/2026 encuadró las plataformas de mercados predictivos como explotación ilegal de apuestas de cuota fija, lo que derivó en el bloqueo de decenas de plataformas por parte de la Anatel.
El movimiento refuerza de manera clara la centralidad de la Ley N.º 14.790/2023 como marco regulatorio exclusivo para la explotación de apuestas de cuota fija en Brasil.
En la práctica, el gobierno ha comenzado a delimitar con mayor precisión quién puede operar en este mercado y bajo qué condiciones.
Las plataformas que buscaban posicionarse como mercados financieros, contratos de eventos o estructuras tecnológicas alternativas pasaron a ser tratadas materialmente como operadores de apuestas.
El mensaje regulatorio es directo: si el producto compite por el mismo público, utiliza una lógica económica similar a las apuestas y conlleva riesgo asociado a eventos futuros, tiende a quedar dentro del perímetro regulatorio de la SPA.
Desde la óptica regulatoria y de competencia, esto genera un efecto relevante para los operadores autorizados.
Las empresas que invirtieron en licencias, cumplimiento normativo, prevención de lavado de dinero, integridad deportiva, políticas de juego responsable y estructura regulatoria dejan de competir con plataformas que operaban al margen de estas exigencias mediante encuadres jurídicos alternativos. Se produce así un fortalecimiento indirecto del valor económico de la licencia regulatoria otorgada por la SPA.
Al mismo tiempo, este fortalecimiento viene acompañado de un aumento significativo de las obligaciones operativas y de cumplimiento.
Las recientes medidas también reabren un debate importante sobre los límites regulatorios de las llamadas betting exchanges y los modelos peer-to-peer.
La propia Nota Técnica SPA/MF N.º 2.958/2026 reconoce que la negociación entre apostadores y la existencia de precios dinámicos no desnaturalizan necesariamente la condición de apuesta de cuota fija. Esta interpretación es relevante porque acerca los mercados predictivos a las estructuras de bolsas de apuestas ya previstas en la Ley N.º 14.790/2023.
Este punto podría abrir espacio, en el futuro, para modelos regulados de betting exchange en Brasil, siempre que estén dentro del perímetro autorizado por la SPA.
Sin embargo, la regulación operativa de este formato aún no ha sido desarrollada por la autoridad, lo que mantiene un nivel importante de incertidumbre para los operadores interesados en innovación de producto.
Desde otra perspectiva, las medidas también tienden a generar una intensa judicialización. Existen debates relevantes sobre los límites de la competencia del CMN para restringir ciertos tipos de derivados, sobre la actuación interpretativa de la SPA respecto a los mercados predictivos y sobre el bloqueo de plataformas sin orden judicial.
Independientemente del desenlace de estas disputas, lo cierto es que el mercado brasileño de iGaming y apuestas deportivas entra en una nueva fase.
La lógica regulatoria deja de centrarse únicamente en la autorización formal para operar y pasa a incorporar de forma más intensa temas como integridad financiera, protección de usuarios vulnerables, gobernanza de datos, trazabilidad de pagos y supervisión operativa continua.
El sector continúa creciendo, pero ahora dentro de un entorno significativamente más sofisticado —y más exigente. Para los operadores autorizados, esto representa simultáneamente una barrera de entrada para competidores irregulares y un aumento relevante en los costos de cumplimiento. En un mercado cada vez más regulado, la diferencia competitiva tiende a depender menos de la capacidad de ofrecer apuestas y más de la capacidad de operar con seguridad regulatoria, integridad operativa y rápida adaptación a las nuevas exigencias del Estado.
Rafael Brunati, abogado en las áreas de Derecho Societario, Contratos, M&A y Private Equity, así como del sector bancario en Silveiro Advogados, es graduado en Derecho por la Universidad Presbiteriana Mackenzie, posee un LL.M en Derecho Societario por INSPER y es miembro de la Comisión de Derecho Bancario de la OAB/SP.
Celso Basílio, abogado en las áreas de Mercados Regulados, Telecomunicaciones, Contratos y Derecho de la Competencia en Silveiro Advogados, es máster en Derecho por la FGV Derecho SP, posee un LL.M en Derecho de los Contratos por INSPER y es graduado en Derecho por la Universidad Presbiteriana Mackenzie.
The post Nuevas reglas del CMN y SPA reorganizan el tablero del iGaming y las apuestas deportivas appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
-
Africa5 days agoSpringbok Casino Presents “Wild Galaxy Month” with 25 Free Spins on Prosperity Pots
-
Baltics5 days ago
Kanggiten: From B2C Insight to B2B Performance in iGaming
-
Asia5 days ago
NOVOMATIC to Debut New Linked Progressive Innovations and Expanded Portfolio at G2E Asia 2026
-
affiliate marketing5 days ago
CasinoCanada partners with FortuneJack to expand crypto casino coverage
-
Alex Fonseca5 days ago
Superbet expands football presence with naming rights deal at Bahia-based club
-
Canada5 days ago
CasinoCanada announces partnership with FortuneJack casino
-
Central Europe4 days ago
Tipico Casino Enters into Partnership with Holstein Kiel
-
bet3654 days ago
Evoplay adds bet365 to its Brazil operator lineup
