Interviews
Scaling With Purpose: RedCore’s Tech Vision Explained
Reading Time: 7 minutes
At SiGMA Central Europe in Rome, European Gaming Media sat down with Yevhenii Yankovyi, Vice President of Technology and Deputy CTO at RedCore, for a deep look into what truly powers RedCore’s large-scale engineering operations.
RedCore is known for innovating at enterprise level, yet moving with the agility of a fast-growing tech company. In this conversation, Yevhenii breaks down how the organization manages that balance: how engineering teams maintain both speed and reliability, how automation empowers creativity, and why culture must remain a daily practice rather than a one-time achievement.
Can you introduce yourself and RedCore’s approach to engineering at scale?
Sure. My name is Yevhenii, I’m the Vice President of Technology at RedCore and Deputy CTO. RedCore is a large company with many products and projects, so everything we do operates at a significant scale. And when people hear “enterprise-level engineering,” the usual assumption is that scale automatically means slowness: slow decision-making, slow implementation, slow testing, slow time to market.
That’s the mindset we challenge. We don’t believe speed and stability are opposites. In our experience, at this level of complexity, the two actually reinforce each other. When you build the right processes, the right technical foundations, and the right organizational structure, speed becomes a natural result of stability – not something that contradicts it.
We plan for scaling from day one. For us, that’s a fundamental requirement. We build products with the expectation that they will grow, and growth means scale. So we design with that in mind from the very first line of architecture.
But that doesn’t mean disappearing for six or ten months to design the “perfect” system. That’s the common mistake people make when they hear “design for scale.” Our approach is different: we keep the long-term vision in mind, but we move fast, iterate, and make sure the product can evolve without slowing the team down. Stability and speed working together – that’s the engineering culture we build at RedCore.
How does RedCore balance speed and stability in daily engineering?
I will explain this with a simple metaphor: think about a car. Everyone talks about acceleration and top speed, but none of that matters if you can’t take a corner. Speed alone is not the winning formula – you also need control.
That’s exactly how we look at engineering at RedCore. We want to accelerate, make decisions quickly, and develop fast. But we also need the ability to slow down at the right moment, change direction, and stay agile. Balancing speed with stability is the only way to move at scale.
There are many layers to this – it’s a topic I could talk about for days – but in a nutshell:
at a big scale, you must have strong standards, clear policies, and a high level of automation. We rely heavily on automation: infrastructure as code, CI/CD pipelines, automated testing, and all the tools that remove repetitive, routine work from engineers’ daily lives. When the routine disappears, people can focus on what humans actually do best: creativity, problem-solving, and innovation.
However, automation doesn’t build the software for you. It creates a safety net. It catches mistakes, guards quality, and supports engineers when their creativity pushes boundaries. In other words: tools give freedom, and also protect that freedom.
And of course, this includes AI and many other modern tools. We use whatever helps us keep the balance: give people space to think, create, and experiment, while ensuring the system stays stable, predictable, and high-quality.
How does RedCore’s management keep teams aligned yet fast?
First of all, we provide clear goals. As I mentioned earlier, we always design for scale from day zero – but you can only do that if you know exactly what you’re building, for whom, and why. We have a very strong business team that understands the market and what needs to be delivered. The technology team works side by side with them, reinforcing them.
Once the goals are clear, we begin small. If you try to build a huge system from the beginning and get it wrong, you create a nightmare: something no one can support, change, or grow. Complexity grows exponentially, and humans don’t think exponentially; we think linearly. That’s where companies often get lost.
So we avoid that by validating early and validating often. We start with small steps, keep a close eye on every direction we take, and confirm that what we’re building is truly needed by the market. When we see that the direction is right, then we scale – and by that point, the foundation is already in place. It’s like preparing a launchpad so that when the time comes, the team can accelerate immediately.
We build block by block and work in iterations. We take a small team – one, two, maybe three people – and let them experiment for a week. We test the idea fast, get quick feedback, and bring it to the business side: “Do you like it?” If the answer is yes, then we continue, still following all the proper engineering practices before anything goes into production.
This constant loop between business and technology keeps everyone aligned. We give feedback, we receive feedback, and we move together. That’s how we stay both fast and coordinated, always ready to scale when the direction is confirmed.
How does automation empower engineers without slowing them down?
When we talk about automation, we’re really talking about optimization at scale. It doesn’t make sense to over-engineer small things, but at the scale we operate, the cost efficiency and speed gains are enormous. And people often assume that big systems and automation automatically slow everything down. For us, it’s the opposite.
The tools we introduce are not meant to tie engineers’ hands with bureaucracy. We don’t force strict guidelines or heavy processes that kill creativity. Our tools exist to help: to prevent mistakes, to collect feedback quickly, and to give teams the shortest possible path from idea to validation.
Here’s a simple example: we start experimenting with a small feature. We build a tiny prototype to see if the idea works. If it’s promising, the next step is testing, pipelines, deployment – all the things that normally take time. In many companies, engineers would try to do all of this manually because “building the tools will take too long.” But with us, the tools are already there. The infrastructure, the CI/CD, the automation – everything is ready to use. Our engineers are essentially customers of this internal platform that supports fast, safe delivery.
We have many different teams that have different great ideas. If one team tries something new and it works better, great – we learn from it. If another team has a different approach because of product specifics or release schedules, that’s fine too. We give freedom to the teams to work, share their experiences, and then scale.
Of course, there are non-negotiables. When it comes to security and data privacy there is zero tolerance. These are areas where strict rules are absolutely necessary. I always tell the security people: everyone should be a little afraid of you, because these things must be perfect. But outside those critical areas, we don’t impose rules that slow teams down. We experiment, gather feedback, adjust, and keep improving.
We’re constantly researching, experimenting, and customizing our automation depending on the product and the market. But when it comes to system design, we don’t reinvent the wheel. We choose globally recognized tools and industry-validated technologies. So yes, we empower engineers with automation and the right tools, built on a solid, modern foundation.
How does culture work for you – is it an achievement, or part of your routine?
Culture is a critical element in balancing speed and stability. Tools and processes matter, but culture is what truly empowers a team and keeps everything together at scale.
For us, culture starts with giving people freedom: the freedom to experiment, the freedom to make mistakes, and the freedom to challenge ideas. We don’t want engineers to be afraid of trying something new. We build a culture where mistakes are acceptable and manageable. If we try something and it doesn’t work, great – now we know better. We learn, adjust, and move on.
We encourage ideas from every level. Some of our most interesting insights come from developers who notice something while working on a small task. They can come directly to me or to the CTO and say, “I see a problem here.” It’s completely okay. A small detail in one corner of the system can become a huge issue at scale, so we listen. That’s how we avoid blind spots.
We also give teams autonomy. Small teams can make their own decisions and experiment in their own ways. If different teams want to do things differently, that’s fine – as long as they validate everything and share their findings. We want people to help each other and to understand that even top engineers have ups and downs. Even senior management makes mistakes. I constantly ask my team: “If I make a wrong decision, tell me.” It’s not about transparency as a buzzword – it’s about behavior. People observe how you respond, and they learn from that.
The biggest mistake any leader can make is demotivating people. We work with intelligent, educated, passionate professionals. They want to contribute. You just need to give them the space to do it. That’s when you see people shine and bring forward brilliant ideas.
As for the question of whether culture is an achievement or a routine – for us, it’s definitely a routine. People often talk about “building a strong engineering culture” as if it’s a success. We treat it as a routine as a process. Culture is the daily interactions between people in an organization. Those interactions change: people come and go, someone has a bad day, someone disagrees with a decision. Culture is shaped every day by how we communicate, how we argue, how we respect each other, and how we resolve differences.
Going to a colleague in the kitchen and asking, “Hey, what do you think about this?” – that’s culture. Anyone can talk to anyone, openly. And when engineers realize they can make a real impact, that they are heard, that they can influence the product — that motivates them. That’s what keeps the culture alive.
How do you balance standards with creative freedom?
The first thing is that we don’t pressure people. We set strict standards only where they are truly critical for the business. Security, data privacy, stability at scale – those areas demand clear rules. But everywhere else, we try not to push people. And when we do introduce a standard or guideline, we listen carefully to feedback. If the team tells us we made the wrong call, that’s okay – we rethink it and look for better approaches.
The second thing is that as the projects grow, the teams scale as well. Even in the design phase, we don’t start with a huge team. I prefer a small group: one key person who leads the design initiative, plus two or three contributors who constantly review, test, question, and give feedback. If three or four people align in one direction, that’s a good signal we’re on the right track. Then we take that proposal to a larger group – people who might use it or need it.. We refine it again based on their input. The idea evolves, but we don’t need to start from the beginning.
Finally, when we have a strong direction, we present it to the entire tech team. And even then – even if top management already supports the decision – it’s completely acceptable for a mid-level developer to raise concerns. Maybe they’ve seen something before, maybe they read an article, maybe they faced a similar issue. We listen, because at scale, one overlooked detail can cost millions.
So once again, balancing standards with creative freedom is about scaling the processes step by step: we start with a small group, validate in small cycles, and then scale the decision up gradually. This approach protects creativity, ensures high quality, and keeps us aligned. And combined with our culture, it makes the process both fast and safe.
The post Scaling With Purpose: RedCore’s Tech Vision Explained appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.
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.
-
Africa6 days agoSpringbok Casino Presents “Wild Galaxy Month” with 25 Free Spins on Prosperity Pots
-
affiliate marketing6 days ago
CasinoCanada partners with FortuneJack to expand crypto casino coverage
-
Asia6 days ago
NOVOMATIC to Debut New Linked Progressive Innovations and Expanded Portfolio at G2E Asia 2026
-
Baltics6 days ago
Kanggiten: From B2C Insight to B2B Performance in iGaming
-
Alex Fonseca6 days ago
Superbet expands football presence with naming rights deal at Bahia-based club
-
Canada6 days ago
CasinoCanada announces partnership with FortuneJack casino
-
Central Europe5 days ago
Tipico Casino Enters into Partnership with Holstein Kiel
-
Adjarabet5 days ago
Octoplay launches in Georgia with Adjarabet
