Connect with us

Interviews

Exclusive QandA with Eriks Petersons, Digital Transformation Director of Ciklum

Published

on

Reading Time: 6 minutes

 

We have here a fascinating interview with a leader in the gaming industry. Meet Eriks Petersons, Digital Transformation Director of Ciklum.

He talks here about his introduction into the industry as a professional poker player in Riga to his move to Malta and his career in the industry.

What stands apart in the opinions and views are a clear-cut focus on the player experience and how it needs to be unique and standardized.

“One area that is really lacking, in my opinion, is differentiated player experience.” He says with absolute conviction.

He also elaborates about the use of technology, regulation and the need to break down the internal processes into smaller and simple steps.

Read on. Don’t miss the wisdom.

Q. Let’s begin the interview with a brief intro into your career. Our readers love to hear top entrepreneurs talk about themselves.

A. I started off in the iGaming industry in early 2008, back in my hometown Riga, where I was a professional poker player. Poker was at its peak and everyone was talking about it. Fast forward to 2011, specifically the Black Friday events of April 15th, which pretty much put an end to the poker hype. I bought a one-way flight ticket to Malta in order to further develop my career in an industry I’d fallen in love with.

I’ve spent the past 10 years or so working in various operational positions in major B2B and B2C companies, working closely with clients, tech and products. Looking back, I was fortunate to join the industry at a time where I’ve been able to grow and mature alongside it. This has allowed me to develop a well-rounded knowledge of company operations and industry specifics.

My current role at Ciklum is leading the iGaming vertical. Our aim is to contribute back to the industry, sharing our technological know-how and supercharging the growth of our clients to reach new heights.

Q. How do you view the development of technology for the iGaming industry over the last few years? There have been too many things happening, such as the covid 19 pandemic, frequent regulation changes and the emergence of newer tools in artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing and blockchain?

A. The last few years have been quite interesting. Whilst one might say regulation has been the biggest culprit for the lack of innovation, especially for those companies that have a global footprint, it’s also been one of the main motivators for innovation. The same is true for AI, Big Data and Cloud, which all serve regulatory needs in one way or another.

Now that we have seen the adoption of these new tools to some degree, it’s time to spread them out to the other areas of the product. One area that is really lacking, in my opinion, is differentiated player experience.

With some exceptions, most casinos are all the same. They just have a different look and feel. There’s nothing special that makes the player choose a particular brand, or even more importantly, stick to it.

Q. On what ways do you think the pandemic affected the igaming technology development? And what are the technological changes that igaming companies can adopt to make their functioning pandemic-proof in future?

A. There’s not been many new developments, but one that I do like is the shared player experience. It’s also a trend we have seen in other industries, such as video streaming, with tech giants like Netflix and Disney+ both launching watch-along features earlier this year.

In regards to technological changes, the industry has once again proved its recession-proof status. Although I’d say this is more due to the entertainment nature of the industry, rather than any particular technological development.

When times are tough, people look for moments of joy. As long as it happens in a sustainable and responsible way, why not have a chance of winning something as well?

On the other hand, the closure of all the sporting events during the pandemic taught us the importance of product diversification and over-reliance on physical world interactions. Therefore I’d expect things like already popular esports betting and virtual sports, especially built on the blockchain technology, to now grow in significance.

Q. Let’s now talk about technological changes. How can iGaming companies work on different regulatory changes and product features in parallel – without stalling each other, and offering seamless service to users?

A. There are quite a few factors at play here, from your product strategy, to planning, to prioritisation, to available budgets and headcounts. There needs to be a well-segregated system with teams formed around different areas of responsibility, which can work independently on their own release cycles. The emphasis should be on independence. For example, whilst your ‘responsible gaming’ or ‘fair play’ team is busy implementing a change in Germany, your ‘player acquisition’ team can refactor, test or improve the new features on the homepage.

The only other piece of advice, which is similar to what every productivity coach would tell you, is break things down into small logical chunks and start working on them at your earliest opportunity. This way you’ll avoid any last-minute stress for your teams, gain some productivity points, and thus benefit from extra time to spend on some nice, new, shiny features. The trick here is to keep releasing these small logical chunks directly to production, and in case the full feature (constituting of multiple small logical pieces) is not ready or requires to be launched later, you can keep its functionality configurable on or off – known as feature toggling.

Q. Why do companies need APIs to work with a number of 3rd party tools, such as fraud detection platforms, KYC verification tools, and others?

A. It’s not a question of why, but rather a question of how? If you don’t have a standardised process, you’ll keep adapting to each new integration coming your way and thus fitting more and more customisations and exceptions to your platform, which would eventually grow into an uncontrollable beast that no one wants to deal with.

As a simple example, if we focus just on the basic functioning of the online slot – there’s tons of various online slot providers out there which each have their own API. However, all slots function pretty much in the same way. You need to query the wallet to check the balance, you need to call the provider to make a bet (spin), and then you need to be notified of any winnings. Now, as an example, some providers will not return any calls when there is a loss, some will return a call as 0 winning, whilst others will register each loss separately. If you don’t have these things standardised in your platform, you’ll keep having different variations of the same that will eventually become hard to maintain.

Q. What are your insights on the use of cloud computing in working with huge amounts of players data?

A. There are numerous benefits of using Cloud which are already pretty well documented. First of all, huge amounts of data require enormous amounts of storage. Whilst it’s technically possible to increase the capacity of your in-house servers, you need to plan these things well in advance.

Secondly, due to cloud’s ‘infrastructure as a service’ model, you’re basically moving all your upfront bare metal CAPEX expenses to much smaller OPEX expenses which would grow only as you grow, and thus are much better on your bottom-line.

Last but not least, cloud provides the ability to scale your infrastructure very quickly so you can manage large spikes of traffic or prepare for a new market launch. The cherry on top is when you manage to automate this horizontal and vertical scaling.

Q. How do you think simple changes – such as registration forms design – can make a big difference in the player experience and eventually the revenue for iGaming operators?

A. One can never stop experimenting. Player trends are constantly changing, and you should not forget to account for the multiple market and cultural aspects in this equation. There are tons of untested hypotheses which can only be validated by real data. Is a three step registration process better than one?

Even the smallest things like the colour, shape or positioning of a button can have an enormous impact on player behaviour and thus the conversion rate. Successful operators never stand still, they keep experimenting, keep validating, and keep improving their product and thus revenue in small, manageable increments at a time.

Q. Finally, where do you see the current digital transformation heading to. In future, will digital transformation invade privacy and data security of the end users much more than it does today?

A. Overall, the digital transformation topic is quite broad, but one important aspect of it is the ability to see things in much greater detail, understanding those details, and then having better control over them. This may be physical items, events or outcomes. Having said that, it definitely touches on all possible aspects of player data. I would expect regulations and moral principles to set the boundaries.

Think of your phone, it already has dozens of various sensors built into it which can detect light, sound, gravity, acceleration, location, temperature, biometrics, and a lot more. One can opt to use this data, and who knows, maybe in the future, instead of the traditional spin buttons on the slot machines, players will throw their phone up in the air to feed the slot’s unique RNG algorithm.

But on a more serious note, short to mid-term I’d expect to see more control given to the players in terms of how they want to entertain themselves. From the look and feel to the actual dynamics of the play. They might want to play solo, or have a party game with their friends, where balances are shared and winnings distributed. Prop bets will also become much more granular by using every imaginable data point of the particular sport / market, placed via smart speakers directly on your TV whilst watching the live stream.

Long-term, affiliates, and probably even individual players themselves, will be able to create their own casino within the casino and keep a portion of the revenues. They would be able to define every aspect from the look and feel to the type of games, localised bonuses and loyalty programs, and so on.

Then, in the not so distant future, this all will probably move to some sort of metaverse, with such attempts having already been made.

Powered by WPeMatico

Continue Reading
Advertisement

apuestas deportivas

¿Son las casas de apuestas las culpables o la arquitectura económica construida por Brasil en los últimos 35 años?

Published

on

¿son-las-casas-de-apuestas-las-culpables-o-la-arquitectura-economica-construida-por-brasil-en-los-ultimos-35-anos?
¿Son las casas de apuestas las culpables o la arquitectura económica construida por Brasil en los últimos 35 años?

Esta es la pregunta central planteada por Carlos Akira Sato en su análisis sobre el creciente endeudamiento de los hogares en Brasil.

En lugar de atribuir el sobreendeudamiento a las plataformas de apuestas deportivas, sostiene que el problema tiene sus raíces en décadas de transformación económica marcadas por la expansión del crédito, la financiarización y sistemas cada vez más sofisticados de estimulación del consumo en múltiples sectores.

El debate sobre el endeudamiento de las familias brasileñas ha ganado un nuevo objetivo preferente: las plataformas de apuestas deportivas.

Las llamadas “bets” han pasado a ocupar un lugar central en los medios, el discurso político y las discusiones regulatorias, frecuentemente asociadas al aumento de la morosidad y la compulsividad financiera.

Pero quizá la pregunta correcta sea otra: ¿el sobreendeudamiento de las familias brasileñas realmente nació con las bets?

La respuesta, desde un análisis histórico riguroso, es negativa.

El fenómeno es mucho anterior a la regulación de las apuestas deportivas y está vinculado a una profunda transformación económica, cultural y tecnológica iniciada en los años 90, cuando Brasil abandonó gradualmente una economía cerrada e inflacionaria para entrar en una lógica moderna de consumo, crédito y financiarización de la vida cotidiana.

La apertura económica promovida durante el gobierno de Collor cambió el patrón de consumo del país.
Pocos años después, el Plan Real trajo estabilidad monetaria y transformó la propia psicología económica de la población.

Por primera vez, millones de brasileños comenzaron a financiar bienes, usar tarjetas de crédito, pagar en cuotas e incorporar el endeudamiento como parte normal de la vida económica.

Este proceso representó un avance y una inclusión financiera.

Pero también consolidó un nuevo modelo económico basado en la anticipación del ingreso futuro de los hogares. El crédito dejó de ser una excepción y se convirtió en infraestructura permanente de sostén del consumo nacional.

Bancos, minoristas y entidades financieras comprendieron rápidamente este cambio. Grandes cadenas dejaron de actuar únicamente como distribuidoras de productos para convertirse en plataformas financieras.

Las tarjetas private label, los sistemas de financiación sofisticados y los mecanismos permanentes de crédito pasaron a integrar la vida cotidiana del consumidor. En muchos casos, el margen financiero se volvió tan relevante como la propia venta del producto.

A lo largo de los años 2000, el modelo se profundizó.

La expansión de la bancarización, de los medios electrónicos de pago y de las fintech aceleró la financiarización de la vida cotidiana.

A partir de 2013, con la apertura regulatoria impulsada por la Ley nº 12.865, el celular pasó a funcionar simultáneamente como banco, billetera digital, plataforma de crédito, marketplace y entorno permanente de monetización del comportamiento.

El crédito se volvió instantáneo, invisible e integrado a la experiencia digital.

El consumidor pasó a contratar financiación en pocos clics, muchas veces dentro del propio flujo de compra. Brasil entró definitivamente en la era de la hiperestimulación conductual del consumo.

Y aquí es donde el debate contemporáneo comienza a revelar una contradicción importante.

Mientras el país construyó durante décadas una sofisticada arquitectura económica basada en expansión del crédito, publicidad emocional, gamificación, captura de la atención y monetización del ingreso futuro, la inversión estructural en educación financiera siguió siendo insuficiente.

Brasil enseñó a su población a consumir antes de enseñarle a construir patrimonio.

Hoy, prácticamente todos los sectores relevantes de la economía operan mecanismos avanzados de estímulo conductual: retail digital, aplicaciones, streaming, delivery, marketplaces, bancos, fintechs y redes sociales.

La publicidad dejó de ser meramente informativa y pasó a ser algorítmica, personalizada y emocional.

El consumidor moderno compite por su atención y autocontrol contra sistemas diseñados para maximizar el engagement y el consumo continuo.

Este fenómeno aparece incluso en sectores raramente asociados al debate regulatorio.

El comercio alimentario, por ejemplo, utiliza técnicas sofisticadas de neuromarketing para impulsar el consumo de productos ultraprocesados, bebidas alcohólicas e ítems de compra impulsiva. Sin embargo, pocos segmentos han enfrentado un nivel de monitoreo similar al impuesto a las apuestas deportivas.

El sector regulado de las bets surgió en Brasil bajo uno de los marcos más estrictos de la economía digital.

Las plataformas deben identificar usuarios biométricamente, monitorear el comportamiento, rastrear operaciones, comunicar movimientos sospechosos al COAF, implementar políticas de juego responsable e impedir apuestas financiadas con crédito.

Es decir: el regulador entendió correctamente que la combinación entre compulsividad y crédito podía ser socialmente explosiva.

Pero aquí surge una pregunta inevitable: ¿por qué sectores históricamente asociados al sobreendeudamiento de las familias brasileñas operaron durante décadas bajo niveles significativamente menores de monitoreo conductual?

Datos de la CNC muestran que el porcentaje de familias endeudadas alcanzó el 80,2% en febrero de 2026 — el nivel más alto de la serie histórica.

Este escenario no nació con las bets. Es el resultado de décadas de expansión agresiva del crédito, financiarización de la vida cotidiana, hiperestimulación del consumo y ausencia estructural de educación económica de la población.

Marco comparativo : obligaciones regulatorias y conductuales

Tema / Obligación Bets Bancos Retail / Alimentos
Identificación formal del cliente (KYC) Obligatoria, robusta, con biometría Obligatoria Limitada
Validación de titularidad de cuenta Obligatoria Generalmente obligatoria Normalmente inexistente
Monitoreo conductual Alto Enfocado en fraude y crédito Bajo
Prohibición del uso de crédito No No
Publicidad emocional Con restricciones crecientes Permitida con límites Ampliamente utilizada
Protección contra compulsividad Obligatoria Muy limitada Prácticamente inexistente
Herramientas de autoexclusión Obligatorias Inexistentes Inexistentes
Obligación de reporte al COAF Limitada
Control del origen de fondos Obligatorio Obligatorio Generalmente inexistente
Fiscalización conductual Intensa Moderada Baja
Políticas de consumo responsable Obligatorias Parciales Generalmente inexistentes

El punto más provocador quizá sea justamente la asimetría regulatoria que este debate revela.

Varios sectores históricamente asociados a la compulsividad, el hiperconsumo y la dependencia han operado durante décadas bajo una lógica regulatoria menos intervencionista que la actualmente aplicada a las apuestas deportivas.

Al final, el verdadero debate tal vez no sea solo “cómo regular las apuestas”, sino cómo preparar a la sociedad para vivir en una economía digital, hiperinanciarizada y permanentemente orientada a la captura de la atención, el consumo y la monetización conductual.

Carlos Akira Sato
Co-Founder de Fenynx Digital Assets y especialista en Mercados Regulados, Infraestructura Financiera, Gobernanza e Innovación. Vicepresidente de Relaciones Institucionales de PAGOS (Asociación de Gestión de Medios de Pagos Electrónicos).

The post ¿Son las casas de apuestas las culpables o la arquitectura económica construida por Brasil en los últimos 35 años? appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.

Continue Reading

Betting Companies

Are betting operators to blame, or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years?

Published

on

are-betting-operators-to-blame,-or-is-it-brazil’s-economic-framework-of-the-last-35-years?

Are betting companies to blame or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years?

This is the central question raised by Carlos Akira Sato in his analysis of Brazil’s rising household debt.

Rather than attributing over-indebtedness to sports betting platforms, he argues that the issue is rooted in decades of economic transformation shaped by credit expansion, financialization, and increasingly sophisticated systems of consumer stimulation across multiple sectors.

The debate surrounding Brazilian household debt has gained a new preferred target: sports betting platforms.

The so-called “bets” have taken center stage in the news, political discourse, and regulatory discussions, often associated with rising default rates and financial compulsiveness.

But perhaps the correct question is another one: did the over-indebtedness of Brazilian families really begin with bets?

The answer, under a serious historical analysis, is no.

The phenomenon predates the regulation of sports betting by decades and is linked to a profound economic, cultural, and technological transformation that began in the 1990s, when Brazil gradually abandoned a closed and inflationary economy to enter a modern logic of consumption, credit, and the financialization of everyday life.

The economic opening promoted during the Collor administration changed the country’s consumption patterns.

A few years later, the Real Plan brought monetary stability and transformed the population’s economic psychology itself.

For the first time, millions of Brazilians began financing goods, using credit cards, paying in installments, and incorporating debt as a normal part of economic life.

This process represented progress and financial inclusion.

But it also consolidated a new economic model based on the anticipation of families’ future income. Credit ceased to be an exception and became permanent infrastructure supporting national consumption.

Banks, retailers, and financial institutions quickly understood this change. Large retail chains stopped acting solely as product distributors and became financial platforms.

Private-label cards, sophisticated installment plans, and permanent financing mechanisms became part of consumers’ daily lives. In many cases, financial margins became just as relevant as the sale of the products themselves.

Throughout the 2000s, the model deepened.

The expansion of banking access, electronic payment methods, and fintechs accelerated the financialization of everyday life.

From 2013 onward, with the regulatory opening promoted by Law No. 12,865, mobile phones simultaneously became banks, digital wallets, credit platforms, marketplaces, and permanent environments for behavioral monetization.

Credit became instant, invisible, and integrated into the digital experience. Consumers started obtaining financing in just a few clicks, often within the purchasing flow itself. Brazil definitively entered the era of behavioral hyperstimulation of consumption.

And this is where the contemporary debate begins to reveal an important contradiction.

While the country spent decades building a sophisticated economic architecture based on credit expansion, emotional advertising, gamification, attention capture, and monetization of future income, structural investment in financial education remained insufficient.

Brazil taught its population how to consume before teaching them how to build wealth.

Today, virtually every relevant sector of the economy operates advanced behavioral stimulation mechanisms: digital retail, apps, streaming platforms, delivery services, marketplaces, banks, fintechs, and social networks.

Advertising is no longer merely informative; it has become algorithmic, personalized, and emotional. The modern consumer competes for attention and self-control against systems designed to maximize engagement and continuous consumption.

This phenomenon appears even in sectors rarely associated with regulatory debates.

The food retail industry, for example, uses sophisticated neuromarketing techniques to boost the consumption of ultra-processed foods, alcoholic beverages, and impulse-buy products. Yet few segments have faced a level of monitoring similar to that imposed on sports betting.

Brazil’s regulated betting sector emerged under one of the strictest frameworks in the digital economy.

Platforms are required to biometrically identify users, monitor behavior, track transactions, report suspicious activity to COAF, implement responsible gaming policies, and prevent bets financed through credit.

The Brazilian model requires prior deposits and prohibits “uncovered” betting.

In other words, regulators correctly understood that the combination of compulsiveness and credit could become socially explosive.

But here an inevitable question arises: why have sectors historically associated with the over-indebtedness of Brazilian families operated for decades under significantly lower levels of behavioral monitoring?

Data from CNC show that the percentage of indebted families reached 80.2% in February 2026 — the highest level in the historical series.

This scenario did not begin with bets. It is the result of decades of aggressive credit expansion, financialization of daily life, hyperstimulation of consumption, and the structural absence of economic education for the population.

Comparative framework: regulatory and behavioral obligations

Topic / Obligation Betting operators Banks Retail / Food
Formal customer identification (KYC) Mandatory, robust, biometric Mandatory Limited
Account ownership validation Mandatory Generally mandatory Usually nonexistent
Behavioral monitoring High Focused on fraud and credit Low
Prohibition of credit use Yes No No
Emotional advertising Under increasing restrictions Permitted with limits Widely used
Protection against compulsiveness Mandatory Very limited Practically nonexistent
Self-exclusion tools Mandatory Nonexistent Nonexistent
Obligation to report to COAF Yes Yes Limited
Source-of-funds control Mandatory Mandatory Generally nonexistent
Behavioral oversight Intense Moderate Low
Formal responsible consumption policies Mandatory Partial Generally nonexistent

Perhaps the most provocative point is precisely the regulatory asymmetry revealed by this debate.

Several sectors historically associated with compulsiveness, hyperconsumption, and dependency have operated for decades under a less interventionist regulatory logic than the one currently applied to sports betting.

In the end, the real debate may not simply be “how should betting be regulated?”, but rather how to prepare society to live in a digital, hyper-financialized economy permanently driven by attention capture, consumption, and behavioral monetization.

Carlos Akira Sato
Co-Founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and specialist in Regulated Markets, Financial Infrastructure, Governance, and Innovation. Vice President of Institutional Relations at PAGOS (Association for Electronic Payment Management).

The post Are betting operators to blame, or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years? appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.

Continue Reading

BC Engine

BC.Game’s new CEO Kar Kheng Giam on strategy, structure and growth

Published

on

bc.game’s-new-ceo-kar-kheng-giam-on-strategy,-structure-and-growth

Following his appointment as CEO of BC.Game in March, Kar Kheng Giam (KK) speaks about the strategic priorities shaping the company’s next phase, from strengthening operational foundations to navigating the evolving role of crypto within regulated gaming markets.

 

 You’ve stepped into the CEO role at a pivotal time for the industry. How do you assess the current position of BC.Game?

BC.Game enters this stage from a position of strength in terms of product, user engagement and global reach.

At the same time, the broader industry is evolving. Expectations around governance, regulatory alignment and operational maturity are increasing, particularly for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.

So while the foundation is strong, there is a clear opportunity to further strengthen the structure of the business to support long-term, sustainable growth.

That foundation is reflected in the scale of the business today, with more than 9 million registered users and over 500,000 monthly active players, and in the progress we’ve made across licensed markets such as Anjouan, Kenya, Nigeria and Mexico.

How would you define the strategic focus for BC.Game over the next 12 to 24 months?

It comes down to three interconnected areas. First, reinforcing the operational and governance framework of the business, ensuring we are well aligned with the expectations of more established regulatory environments.

Second, continuing to invest in the product – not just in terms of content, but in the overall user experience and platform reliability.

And third, taking a disciplined approach to market expansion, focusing on jurisdictions where we can build a sustainable and compliant presence.

It’s about evolving the business in a structured and deliberate way.

You’ve highlighted governance and structure. What does that mean in practical terms?

It means putting in place the systems, processes and organisational clarity needed to operate at scale.

As companies grow internationally, complexity increases – across regulation, payments, technology and operations. Strengthening governance is about ensuring those elements are well coordinated and consistently managed.

This is not about changing what BC.Game is, but about building the framework that allows it to grow more effectively.

Why has trust become so important at this stage?

At BC.GAME’s scale, trust is no longer just about brand but increasingly becomes a business issue – it affects retention, partnerships, market entry and long-term growth.

And trust is built in very practical ways. People judge a platform by whether the rules are clear, whether communication is smooth, and whether issues actually get resolved. That’s why growth on its own is no longer enough.

Where is the most immediate trust pressure on BC.GAME showing up today?

The pressure shows up most clearly in user experience and issue handling because that’s where people feel it first.

Some of the feedback does point to response times and cases where issues stay in the same entry point for too long. When that happens often enough, it becomes bigger than a service issue, it starts to shape trust.

What changes is BC.GAME putting in place in response to these issues?

 We’ve already started making changes. That includes upgrading how user issues are handled, bringing cross-functional teams in earlier, and improving how issues are identified and coordinated internally.

As the business has grown, relying too heavily on a single customer support entry point is no longer enough. The focus now is to make issue handling clearer, more stable, and better suited to the scale of the platform.

What role does organisational development play in this next phase?

As the business grows, it’s important to ensure that the organisation evolves alongside it. That includes strengthening leadership structures, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and building capabilities in key areas such as compliance and market operations.

Ultimately, strategy is only as effective as the organisation delivering it.

From a leadership perspective, how do you approach guiding a globally distributed business?

In a global organisation, alignment is critical – everyone needs to understand the strategic direction and how their role contributes to it. At the same time, there needs to be flexibility to adapt to local market dynamics.

My role is to create that balance – providing clear direction while enabling teams to execute effectively within their markets.

Finally, what does success look like for BC.Game over the next few years?

Success is about building a more structured, resilient and trusted business.

That means strengthening our position in regulated markets, continuing to evolve the product, and ensuring the organisation is equipped to operate at scale. This current period is a crucial one for us as we introduce multiple product rollouts at BC.GAME, with several key updates scheduled to go live. These include BC Engine, along with a broader upgrade to the bonus system and, of course, the World Cup.

If we can achieve that through consistent, incremental progress, then we will be well positioned for the long term.

The post BC.Game’s new CEO Kar Kheng Giam on strategy, structure and growth appeared first on Eastern European Gaming | Global iGaming & Tech Intelligence Hub.

Continue Reading

Trending