Latest News
ITL’s Age Check Solutions Attract Big Crowds at ICE London
Innovative Technology (ITL) took part in the last ICE to be held in London last week which attracted huge crowds from the gaming industry before the show moves to Barcelona in 2025. The Innovative stand was right opposite the Consumer Protection Zone which was a key theme at the show, with both their traditional cash handling equipment and latest biometric technology ranges on display.
Marcus Tiedt, Director of Sales & Marketing at ITL, said: “By far the most crowd-pulling solution on the stand was our AI-powered biometric age check technology which provides the gaming industry with a robust tool to prevent underage gambling and safeguard vulnerable players. The industry, government, operators and manufacturers are all committed to ensuring player protection and it was great to demonstrate at ICE how accurate age verification can play a key role. We showed how easy and intuitive it is to receive alerts via a tablet or mobile device whenever someone potentially underage or even self-excluded is trying to play a machine or access an age restricted area at multiple touchpoints.”
Dr Andrew O’Brien, Biometrics Product Manager, said: “Major UK OEMs including Inspired and Reflex have already successfully installed our ICU Lite age verification solution into their gaming cabinets so it was fantastic to see some of them demo this fully integrated on site at ICE. We were also pleased to show a team of compliance and local authority officers our solutions following their visit to the GBG (Gambling Business Group) stand which demonstrated ICU Lite working in an Inspired machine. A key advantage of our technology is that customers only need to pay for the hardware with unlimited age checks at no extra cost. No matter how many age checks are performed, the cost remains the same, making this an affordable solution with a quick return on investment, especially when compared to a subscription service. Plus it’s a completely offline solution meaning all processing is done locally making our solution faster, readily accessible even with no or poor internet and with no privacy issues to worry about either.”
ITL also had a section of their stand dedicated to their traditional cash handling equipment that includes note and coin validators and recyclers which have been used by the gaming industry for over 30 years.
Marcus said: “It was great to show ICE visitors our latest devices for secure cash transactions including the NV4000 and new coin elevator module for the SMART Coin System (SCS). The NV4000 mixed denomination multi bill recycler is ideal for change and redemption terminals, boasting larger recycling capacities, meaning fewer refills and improved machine uptime. Combining the NV4000 with the new elevator module for the SCS, not only can we provide a complete payment solution for both notes and coins, but we can also minimise the gap between coin entry and exit points, improving accessibility and the overall customer experience.”
Marcus added: “There was a real buzz on the stand this year and our team are excited to follow up on all the positive conversations that took place to ensure our gaming customers have the best possible cash validation and age estimation solutions in place. We are proud to be a long-standing supporter of ICE and look forward to celebrating our 30th year exhibiting in Barcelona in 2025.”
apuestas
Una decisión inequívoca para los mercados predictivos en Brasil
La Resolución 5.298 del Consejo Monetario Nacional de Brasil establece un límite regulatorio claro para los mercados de predicción como Polymarket y Kalshi.
En este análisis, Carlos Akira Sato examina cómo la medida refleja un cambio profundo en la arquitectura financiera de Brasil, redefiniendo qué califica como un instrumento financiero legítimo y estableciendo límites a la financiarización de eventos no económicos.
Carlos Akira Sato es cofundador de Fenynx Digital Assets y especialista en mercados regulados, infraestructura financiera y juego responsable.
En este artículo de opinión, argumenta que la Resolución 5.298 de Brasil no se trata tanto de prohibir Polymarket y Kalshi, sino de definir los límites de la próxima generación del sistema financiero.
La publicación de la Resolución nº 5.298 del Consejo Monetario Nacional establece, de forma inequívoca, un nuevo límite para la actuación de plataformas como Polymarket y Kalshi en el país. La conclusión es directa: estos modelos dejan de encontrar espacio regulatorio en Brasil. Pero la relevancia de la decisión no reside en la prohibición en sí, sino en lo que revela sobre el futuro de la arquitectura financiera.
La Resolución 5.298 no aborda explícitamente los mercados predictivos. Actúa en un plano más profundo, al redefinir qué puede considerarse un instrumento financiero legítimo.
Al exigir que los contratos estén vinculados a variables económicas con formación objetiva de precios, el regulador elimina la posibilidad de estructurar instrumentos —por sofisticados que parezcan— basados en eventos políticos, sociales o conductuales. No se trata de un ajuste periférico, sino de un reposicionamiento conceptual.
Durante años, plataformas como Polymarket y Kalshi prosperaron precisamente en la ambigüedad. No son casas de apuestas tradicionales ni encajan completamente como bolsas de derivados.
Operan en un territorio intermedio: contratos basados en probabilidades, lenguaje financiero y una promesa implícita de descubrimiento eficiente de precios sobre el futuro. Esa zona gris siempre fue su principal activo y también su mayor riesgo regulatorio. Lo que Brasil ha hecho ahora es eliminarla.
El punto más sofisticado de la resolución está en su diseño. El Consejo Monetario Nacional no atacó la tecnología, ni el formato de las plataformas, ni su ubicación. Atacó la esencia: la naturaleza del riesgo negociado.
Al hacerlo, volvió irrelevante si la operación se realiza mediante contratos bilaterales, plataformas offshore o protocolos basados en blockchain. Si el riesgo no es económico, el contrato no es admisible. Es una forma de regulación que privilegia la sustancia sobre la forma y que, por ello, tiende a ser más resiliente.
Esta decisión proyecta efectos más allá del debate sobre apuestas. Dialoga directamente con la discusión sobre tokenización y con la idea, ampliamente difundida en los últimos años, de que cualquier evento podría convertirse en un activo digital.
Brasil señala lo contrario: la innovación es bienvenida, pero no ilimitada. La tokenización encuentra legitimidad cuando está anclada en la economía real —crédito, cuentas por cobrar, activos productivos— y la pierde cuando intenta capturar comportamientos, opiniones o eventos sociales como base de negociación.
Es en este punto donde la resolución también revela una tensión institucional. El propio texto normativo asigna a la CVM la responsabilidad de emitir regulación complementaria. La elección es jurídicamente comprensible, pero institucionalmente discutible.
Si el propio diagnóstico del regulador reconoce que se trata de instrumentos híbridos —que transitan entre derivados, valores mobiliarios y estructuras de captación—, la ausencia de una iniciativa conjunta desde el inicio resulta llamativa. La opción de una regulación secuencial, con el CMN estableciendo directrices y la CVM detallando la normativa, introduce un desfase que puede reabrir temporalmente la misma zona gris que se busca cerrar.
La paradoja es evidente. La resolución es sofisticada al atacar la esencia económica de los contratos, pero fragmenta la ejecución regulatoria al distribuir competencias de forma no simultánea.
En un entorno donde la innovación financiera ocurre en la intersección de distintos regímenes —bancario, mercado de capitales y, en ciertos casos, apuestas—, la coordinación deja de ser deseable para convertirse en necesaria. La falta de sincronía puede generar interpretaciones divergentes, inseguridad jurídica y, sobre todo, oportunidades residuales de arbitraje.
Aun así, el núcleo de la decisión permanece sólido. Al restringir lo que puede considerarse un activo financiero, Brasil establece un límite silencioso pero poderoso a la financiarización de la realidad. No todo evento puede convertirse en un contrato. No toda expectativa puede convertirse en un precio. Y no todo lo que puede tokenizarse debe necesariamente negociarse.
Decir que Polymarket y Kalshi no pueden operar en Brasil es, por tanto, correcto. Pero es solo la superficie. Lo que está en juego es la definición de las fronteras de la próxima generación del sistema financiero.
Un sistema que seguirá incorporando tecnología e innovación, pero que, al menos en el caso brasileño, permanecerá anclado en la economía real. Y en ese proceso, la calidad de la coordinación entre reguladores será tan determinante como la claridad de las propias reglas.
Carlos Akira Sato – Cofundador de Fenynx Digital Assets. Especialista en mercados regulados, infraestructura financiera, gobernanza, innovación y juego responsable.
The post Una decisión inequívoca para los mercados predictivos en Brasil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Brazil
An unequivocal decision for prediction markets in Brazil
Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 marks a clear regulatory boundary for prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi.
In this analysis, Carlos Akira Sato examines how the measure reflects a deeper shift in Brazil’s financial architecture, redefining what qualifies as a legitimate financial instrument and setting limits on the financialisation of non-economic events.
Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling.
In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.
Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 sets an unambiguous limit for platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi in the country. The conclusion is straightforward: these models no longer find regulatory space in Brazil. But the significance of the decision lies not in the prohibition itself, it lies in what it reveals about the future of financial architecture.
Resolution 5.298 does not explicitly address prediction markets. It operates at a deeper level, redefining what can be considered a legitimate financial instrument. By requiring that contracts be tied to economic variables with objective price formation, the regulator eliminates the possibility of structuring instruments, however sophisticated in appearance, based on political, social or behavioural events. This is not a peripheral adjustment. It is a conceptual repositioning.
For years, platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi thrived precisely on ambiguity. They are not traditional bookmakers, nor do they fit neatly as derivatives exchanges. They operate in an intermediate territory, contracts based on probabilities, financial language and an implicit promise of efficient price discovery about the future. That grey zone was always their main asset, and their greatest regulatory risk. What Brazil has now done is eliminate it.
The most sophisticated aspect of the resolution lies in its design. The CMN did not target the technology, the format of the platforms, or their location. It targeted the essence: the nature of the risk being traded. In doing so, it made irrelevant whether the operation occurs through bilateral contracts, offshore platforms or blockchain-based protocols. If the risk is not economic, the contract is not admissible. It is a form of regulation that privileges substance over form — and is, for that reason, likely to prove more resilient.
This decision projects effects well beyond the gambling debate. It speaks directly to the discussion around tokenisation and the widely held idea in recent years that any event could be converted into a digital asset. Brazil signals the opposite. Innovation is welcome, but not unlimited. Tokenisation finds legitimacy when anchored in the real economy, credit, receivables, productive assets, and loses it when it attempts to capture behaviour, opinion or social events as the basis for trading.
It is at this point that the resolution also reveals an institutional tension. The normative text itself assigns to the CVM the responsibility of issuing complementary regulation. The choice is legally understandable, but institutionally questionable.
If the regulator’s own diagnosis recognises that these are hybrid instruments, moving between derivatives, securities and fundraising structures, the absence of a joint initiative from the outset is notable. The option for sequential regulation, with the CMN setting guidelines and the CVM filling in the detail, introduces a lag that may temporarily reopen the very grey zone it intends to close.
The paradox is evident. The resolution is sophisticated in attacking the economic essence of contracts, but fragments regulatory execution by distributing competencies non-simultaneously.
In an environment where financial innovation occurs at the intersection of different regimes, banking, capital markets and, in certain cases, gambling, coordination ceases to be desirable and becomes necessary. The lack of synchrony may generate divergent interpretations, legal uncertainty and, above all, residual arbitrage opportunities.
Even so, the core of the decision remains solid. By restricting what can be considered a financial asset, Brazil establishes a silent but powerful limit on the financialisation of reality. Not every event can be turned into a contract. Not every expectation can be converted into a price. And not everything that can be tokenised should necessarily be traded.
To say that Polymarket and Kalshi cannot operate in Brazil is therefore correct, but it is only the surface. What is at stake is the definition of boundaries for the next generation of the financial system. A system that will continue to incorporate technology and innovation, but that, at least in the Brazilian case, will remain anchored in the real economy. And in that process, the quality of coordination between regulators will be as decisive as the clarity of the rules themselves.
Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling. In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.
The post An unequivocal decision for prediction markets in Brazil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Alex Fonseca
Superbet expands football presence with naming rights deal at Bahia-based club
-
Eastern Europe6 days agoSoft2Bet launches Zinx iGaming and sportsbook brand in Romania
-
Africa6 days agoAmusnet and Goldrush Strike Strategic Partnership to Enhance SA Online Gaming
-
AGLC6 days agoInspired Entertainment Secures Alberta iGaming Supplier Registration
-
1spin4win6 days ago1spin4win partners with OdiBets to strengthen its presence in Africa
-
Africa6 days agoTaDa Strengthens its Presence in South Africa Through New Partnership with Sunbet
-
Betting and Gaming Council6 days agoBetting and Gaming Council Appoints Kane Purdy as New Chair
-
Amusnet6 days agoAmusnet Officially Enters the Philippine Market
-
Conferences5 days agoBlokotech and Evoverse sign on as presenting sponsors for iGaming Real Talk at BiS SiGMA South America




