1 00:00:00,142 --> 00:00:05,706 Hello and welcome to today's edition of iGaming Daily, when for a change we'll be talking about 2 00:00:05,746 --> 00:00:12,632 some news that didn't happen, namely the much expected rise in gambling taxes in the UK budget. 3 00:00:13,052 --> 00:00:19,318 So join me to discuss this non-event and other matters arriving from Rachel Reeves' historic 4 00:00:19,358 --> 00:00:26,424 first budget are SBC's content director Ted Menmure and payment expert editor Ted Orme 5 00:00:26,464 --> 00:00:34,491 Clay. Well, Ted. down in London. How are you today? Very well, Martin. How's your break? 6 00:00:34,531 --> 00:00:38,813 Yeah, very good. Peaceful. I've had enough of airports for one year with all the travel we 7 00:00:38,833 --> 00:00:44,394 do with work. So I sat around the house for a week. It was extremely relaxing and quite 8 00:00:44,434 --> 00:00:49,976 pleasing. So thanks for asking. And Ted, how are you back in Manchester after a trip to, 9 00:00:50,236 --> 00:00:55,394 I believe, Monaco last week, which is like Ashton and Lyme where our office is. Yeah, almost 10 00:00:55,874 --> 00:01:02,398 identical in every conceivable way, actually. Yeah. You know, the city state of Ashton was 11 00:01:02,418 --> 00:01:07,741 famous for its casinos, F1 tracks and high performance sports cars. 12 00:01:11,403 --> 00:01:16,165 Yeah, yeah. Back in Manchester after a trip to France and Monaco to the Sportale conference, 13 00:01:16,185 --> 00:01:21,828 which was a very, very interesting love, a lot of good panels and speeches all about sports 14 00:01:21,868 --> 00:01:28,479 business, sports tech, broadcasting sponsorship. Yeah, if we can just alert Rachel Reeves that 15 00:01:28,539 --> 00:01:38,621 you were taking the SPC private jet. Yeah. And Ted, as you appear to, I'll set you up to for 16 00:01:38,641 --> 00:01:43,923 a bit of self-promotion there and you've missed that open goal. So you can read all about some 17 00:01:43,963 --> 00:01:50,925 of those, the interesting panels from that conference on Insider Sport. Right. Before we get into 18 00:01:51,105 --> 00:01:56,848 chatting about the budget. It seems a good time to mention that iGaming Daily is brought to 19 00:01:56,888 --> 00:02:03,992 you in part with OptiMove, the number one CRM solution for the iGaming industry. Okay, with 20 00:02:04,352 --> 00:02:10,176 that out of the way, let's start maybe by being a bit more general rather than going straight 21 00:02:10,236 --> 00:02:14,398 into the bit about the gambling tax, which is talking about something that didn't happen. 22 00:02:14,959 --> 00:02:20,954 Ted, what are the main takeaways you had from the budget? Is it a... Labour came in with 23 00:02:20,974 --> 00:02:25,076 this big promise they were going to be the party for growth and they're going to support business 24 00:02:25,136 --> 00:02:30,639 and so on. What do you think businesses in the gambling industry and perhaps other sectors 25 00:02:31,279 --> 00:02:36,942 should take away from what we heard last week? Okay, so this budget marks a shift from the 26 00:02:36,982 --> 00:02:44,805 prior government strategies. So it's moving incentives or incentives for economic growth. 27 00:02:46,070 --> 00:02:51,212 into public investment. I think that is labor's long-term view of how it wishes to realign 28 00:02:51,252 --> 00:03:02,577 and fix the economy. From taking an overall view, Rachel reads one of this budget and literally 29 00:03:02,597 --> 00:03:11,241 just announced that, look, the economy needs to fill a 40 billion pound black hole. Businesses 30 00:03:11,261 --> 00:03:18,217 will face increased taxes, notably... and national in high-end insurance contributions. And this 31 00:03:18,237 --> 00:03:24,582 was detailed as the main kind of fiscal tool by the Chancellor to fill the deficit. High 32 00:03:24,623 --> 00:03:30,627 interest rates also will raise kind of costs on business. And some argue that the budget 33 00:03:30,647 --> 00:03:38,314 kind of transfers wealth from companies into public services, which will kind of divide 34 00:03:38,334 --> 00:03:44,050 opinion on kind of labor strategy. Overall, kind of the tax deficit. whether placed on 35 00:03:44,110 --> 00:03:51,577 business will affect consumers indirectly, directly or indirectly. So the burden will be borne 36 00:03:51,637 --> 00:04:00,605 by the electorate. It was a budget of tough measures and a budget of tough medicines. And 37 00:04:00,645 --> 00:04:04,909 I think one that the Labour government did not want to announce, but it has to kind of look 38 00:04:04,929 --> 00:04:10,550 to fix the UK economy. Yeah, I think that's right. And it's a budget that's had. we are 39 00:04:10,590 --> 00:04:15,514 at least four years away from the next election. So we're getting the painful stuff out of the 40 00:04:15,954 --> 00:04:21,758 way now. But you did raise an interesting point there about how they're trying to refocus the 41 00:04:21,798 --> 00:04:29,884 economy because if things go to plan, the public sector will be the highest percentage of the 42 00:04:29,964 --> 00:04:39,287 UK economy. It's been since Jim Callaghan's government back in 1979. So it's a... a bit 43 00:04:39,347 --> 00:04:46,554 more to this rather than just a few pence on national insurance here and there. Some people 44 00:04:46,574 --> 00:04:53,200 pay more in inheritance tax and so on. The overall theme of it is genuinely historic. It's the 45 00:04:53,220 --> 00:05:00,587 first time for a long time I've been able to say that about a budget. Ted, what did you 46 00:05:00,707 --> 00:05:06,628 pick out as highlights from it? Anything much relating to sort of payments or investment 47 00:05:06,688 --> 00:05:12,552 or any of the beat you cover on payment expert? Yeah, it's an interesting one. I think, well, 48 00:05:12,572 --> 00:05:18,136 firstly, obviously Ted's hit the nail on the head really with, I think what the Labour government's 49 00:05:18,196 --> 00:05:24,741 ambitions are. Obviously their focus is on stimulating growth through investment. Part of this investment 50 00:05:24,781 --> 00:05:30,705 from some of the stuff I've read is into this quite extensive plan for funding into more 51 00:05:30,765 --> 00:05:35,204 research. This is obviously going to be quite varied, you know, research can cover just about 52 00:05:35,244 --> 00:05:40,349 anything. But I think from the payments and fintech side of things, Labour have been very 53 00:05:40,409 --> 00:05:46,474 vocal over the past couple of months about they want to see continued support for certain financial 54 00:05:47,495 --> 00:05:51,818 innovations and initiatives, certainly fintech ones. There's been a lot of discourse around 55 00:05:51,918 --> 00:05:57,323 open banking and artificial intelligence, unsurprisingly really given how much those are dominating 56 00:05:57,643 --> 00:06:02,019 a lot of discussion in fintech and payments at the moment. This is also kind of a continuation 57 00:06:02,059 --> 00:06:06,603 of what the conservatives are trying to do, particularly under Sunak, who is quite a big 58 00:06:06,623 --> 00:06:10,446 fan of the financial services sector. I think probably given his professional background, 59 00:06:10,966 --> 00:06:14,830 obviously, Labour are trying to build on that and put their own sort of spin on it in their 60 00:06:14,950 --> 00:06:20,494 own, in their own style, obviously being a very different ideological party to the conservatives. 61 00:06:22,076 --> 00:06:26,439 This is, obviously, this is the, this is the area that I think is probably for the payments 62 00:06:26,479 --> 00:06:32,655 and fintech kind of sector to keep an eye on. where this research funding might go and how 63 00:06:32,675 --> 00:06:36,917 they can benefit from this. And then in turn, I guess, how the gambling sector, stakeholders 64 00:06:36,937 --> 00:06:40,098 in that should probably pay attention to that and see how they could benefit. There's obviously 65 00:06:40,598 --> 00:06:46,381 a lot of conversations around what FinTech initiatives and payments initiatives, what potential they 66 00:06:46,401 --> 00:06:50,303 can have for the gambling sector. We saw that discussed quite a bit at our conference in 67 00:06:50,343 --> 00:06:55,805 Lisbon a couple of months ago. And it's obviously quite a common talking point on a lot of our 68 00:06:55,825 --> 00:07:01,079 media sites as well. Obviously, to build on that, though, the main way that they're planning 69 00:07:01,159 --> 00:07:07,201 on funding this is through these tax raises. I think they want to raise an additional 40 70 00:07:07,222 --> 00:07:12,904 billion in tax, a lot of it chiefly from companies. I think that is, there's been, the kind of 71 00:07:12,924 --> 00:07:16,385 the reaction I've seen has been mixed. There's been a lot of welcoming of the research, but 72 00:07:16,405 --> 00:07:21,727 a lot of caution around the taxation side of things because businesses are a bit worried 73 00:07:21,747 --> 00:07:28,422 about what financial burden this could place on them. interesting there on the one hand, 74 00:07:28,462 --> 00:07:32,984 they're doing things to encourage research, encourage technological development. On the 75 00:07:33,004 --> 00:07:39,868 other hand, they're removing some of the rewards for it with the capital gains tax changes. 76 00:07:40,168 --> 00:07:47,551 But ultimately, you know, something has to pay for public services, doesn't it? And we can 77 00:07:47,611 --> 00:07:52,033 argue, I'm sure even the three of us will probably have different opinions on what that is. And 78 00:07:52,758 --> 00:07:56,118 I'm sure there are about 20 different opinions amongst the members of the House of Commons 79 00:07:56,158 --> 00:08:03,941 as well. So let's focus a bit on the gambling side of things then. I mean, obviously the 80 00:08:04,001 --> 00:08:11,163 rise in employers' national insurance is going to be a big cost for, in particular, the big 81 00:08:11,223 --> 00:08:17,204 employers in the sector, the tier one businesses and particularly those with retail estates 82 00:08:17,244 --> 00:08:31,045 and so on. temptation that Rachel Reeves did avoid was increasing gambling taxes despite 83 00:08:32,206 --> 00:08:37,268 some sort of pressure from people who you would regard as natural labor supporters, I think. 84 00:08:37,328 --> 00:08:44,031 So Ted, perhaps you could tell us a bit about what had been trailed and what the industry 85 00:08:44,071 --> 00:08:50,073 feared and then I guess some of the reaction we've had about the fact it did not materialize 86 00:08:50,093 --> 00:08:57,618 in the end. Okay. So in the weeks leading up to the budget, we had two think tanks present 87 00:08:58,479 --> 00:09:04,883 to the treasury, which is effectively a doubling on remote gambling duties or high risk games 88 00:09:05,123 --> 00:09:15,451 for industry taxes. So I believe that concerns were legitimate in general, just because I 89 00:09:15,471 --> 00:09:19,413 believe that all industries and all leaderships should be concerned about the first budget. 90 00:09:19,786 --> 00:09:25,970 statement of a new government and one that really has to fill a deficit of 25 billion pounds. 91 00:09:27,671 --> 00:09:32,454 Overall, the UK government escapes the doubling in taxes proposed by these think tanks. Really, 92 00:09:32,814 --> 00:09:37,398 I don't know how seriously the treasury took in these considerations put forward as they 93 00:09:37,418 --> 00:09:44,142 would have only raised about one billion pounds. There is somewhat of a relief across the industry 94 00:09:44,402 --> 00:09:51,362 but overall, and I think most importantly is that with the budget finished, And I think 95 00:09:51,602 --> 00:09:58,765 that the industry can just return back to focusing on the finalization or concluding the gambling 96 00:09:58,805 --> 00:10:04,448 review. The Tory government can do that. So let's hope that the Labour government can. 97 00:10:04,468 --> 00:10:09,470 Will Barron Sure. And there was very deep in the detail of the documents that came out after 98 00:10:09,510 --> 00:10:15,692 the speech in parliament. There was a little hint of some possible changes in the future 99 00:10:15,972 --> 00:10:20,170 or consideration of changes in the future to the tax regime. Yes, the Labour government 100 00:10:20,190 --> 00:10:26,155 have signed that they are going to streamline remote tax duties, especially on phone lines 101 00:10:26,255 --> 00:10:33,521 and remote gaming segments under one bracket, which is somewhat of a positive and that they're 102 00:10:33,541 --> 00:10:41,267 not going to consider raising or reviewing tax rates until the 2006 budget. So, there is scope 103 00:10:41,287 --> 00:10:47,392 there. Again, this returns the industry back to needing to finalize its generational review, 104 00:10:47,512 --> 00:10:53,790 which is a positive overall. Sure. And Ted, what sort of reaction have we seen to this 105 00:10:54,670 --> 00:11:00,956 non-announcement and non-raising of taxes? I imagine, I'm sure Ted will be a bit more clued 106 00:11:00,976 --> 00:11:05,260 up on this than me coming from the SPC side of things. It's been broadly welcomed, has 107 00:11:05,300 --> 00:11:12,626 it not? I think the Bettingham Gaming Council put out a statement praising the fact that 108 00:11:12,646 --> 00:11:18,082 this wasn't in there after quite a lot of media speculation. even some questions raised in 109 00:11:18,142 --> 00:11:23,143 parliament, if I remember rightly from a parliamentary session I saw with, I believe it was with Lisa 110 00:11:23,183 --> 00:11:30,926 Nandy from DCMS. So yeah, I'd say the industry is probably incredibly relieved to not have 111 00:11:30,946 --> 00:11:36,027 this additional financial pressure. I think as Ted outlined there, it seems to be quite 112 00:11:36,607 --> 00:11:41,929 a sensible decision, I think, to let the rest of the gambling act review adoption take its 113 00:11:41,969 --> 00:11:48,284 course so that the industry sort of respond to that and adjust to these various regulatory 114 00:11:48,324 --> 00:11:56,208 changes that are coming in before any more taxation is put on top of it to help with Labour's ambitions, 115 00:11:56,228 --> 00:12:01,011 if I were to discuss, to reinvest in the economy and things like that. Ted, sorry, I can see 116 00:12:01,031 --> 00:12:05,534 you're wanting to get in on this. Yeah. I mean, I think one of the positive things about this 117 00:12:05,594 --> 00:12:10,417 budget is that, yes, it had tough measures, but I don't think that it was punitive on industries, 118 00:12:10,517 --> 00:12:18,571 right? So... The actual one-to-one tax increases on individual industries, we got one on vapes, 119 00:12:19,571 --> 00:12:26,857 which Keir was very clear that he would implement, one on private jet flights, which was somewhat 120 00:12:26,897 --> 00:12:32,141 of a surprise. And then the other kind of specific measure, I think, was on our sugary drinks. 121 00:12:33,642 --> 00:12:40,006 So gaming wasn't kind of imposing that, wasn't put in that bracket. I think it kind of escapes 122 00:12:40,046 --> 00:12:46,109 anything punitive and I think it returns kind of labor to thinking like long-term on a tax-effective 123 00:12:46,149 --> 00:12:51,913 industry and how it kind of plans for that. So it's a positive kind of first direction 124 00:12:51,953 --> 00:12:59,637 for labor and gaming. Yeah, I think so. I mean, it would seem a fairly odd thing to do. It 125 00:12:59,697 --> 00:13:05,980 is a successful industry that does raise a reasonable chunk of money for the public finances. I think 126 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:15,632 it's about 0.3%. of the public budget comes from gambling taxes. So why would you mess 127 00:13:15,652 --> 00:13:23,795 with it? But there's no sign of the pressure groups taking this as a defeat and going back 128 00:13:23,835 --> 00:13:29,857 and thinking of something else because they've already been outed. There's a piece unsurprisingly 129 00:13:29,877 --> 00:13:36,696 in The Guardian. in which I quoted Derek Webb, the leading gambling reform campaigner and 130 00:13:37,056 --> 00:13:42,918 Labour's fifth biggest donor, describing this as a missed opportunity and talking about how 131 00:13:43,519 --> 00:13:48,801 popular it would have been with the public as a vote winner and so on. And also the Lib Dems, 132 00:13:48,841 --> 00:13:55,964 who perhaps emboldened by now being the third biggest party in parliament and having quite 133 00:13:55,984 --> 00:14:01,699 a sizeable number of MPs in there, have spoken out against. But again, Martin, I think in 134 00:14:01,719 --> 00:14:06,963 kind of the back, I'm sure any criticism of that budget not adding gambling taxes is if 135 00:14:07,003 --> 00:14:14,928 you speak to any CFO or CEO, in any budget, they're always prepared for any increase in 136 00:14:14,969 --> 00:14:20,052 taxes towards gambling. And I think kind of leadership can kind of factor in. What they 137 00:14:20,092 --> 00:14:24,502 can't factor in is the context of what was brought forward by those think tanks, which was an 138 00:14:24,542 --> 00:14:29,023 immediate doubling of taxes, right? And that would have just sent shockwaves across the 139 00:14:29,064 --> 00:14:36,486 industry, but also across the industry's value chain, i.e. for horse racing, for advertising, 140 00:14:36,666 --> 00:14:43,168 for the way it sets up its technology systems. That would have been kind of the shock effect 141 00:14:43,228 --> 00:14:45,748 of that type of budget coming in for gambling. 142 00:14:49,898 --> 00:14:54,662 But there's just no guarantee that, you know, come two years time, they will be tax raised 143 00:14:54,682 --> 00:15:00,386 or not. That's up to the Labour government and that's down to how the UK economy plays out. 144 00:15:00,606 --> 00:15:04,850 Yeah, I think so. There's no doubt about it. This budget doesn't go quite as well as they're 145 00:15:04,890 --> 00:15:12,396 expecting and, you know, in any budget there's a range of possibilities about how successful 146 00:15:12,436 --> 00:15:20,046 it will be in achieving its aims. It's eminently possible in two, three years time, Rachel includes 147 00:15:20,346 --> 00:15:24,890 more tax rises in different sectors. You would like to think though that it won't be a doubling 148 00:15:25,270 --> 00:15:36,359 overnight if that is the case. Okay. Obviously, the budget last week and the historic changes 149 00:15:36,399 --> 00:15:43,145 that have been brought in during it was the big political story in the UK. I believe there's 150 00:15:43,205 --> 00:15:47,348 also something going on in the political world on the other side of the Atlantic, which people 151 00:15:47,368 --> 00:15:52,930 have been following quite closely. Start with you a bit, Ted. There's a colossal amount of 152 00:15:52,970 --> 00:16:01,813 interest from punters in the UK on the US election, which must be an interesting spectacle if you're 153 00:16:01,833 --> 00:16:05,774 sitting in the US where you're not allowed to bet on the election. What can you tell us about 154 00:16:06,274 --> 00:16:09,735 what's been happening on, in particular, the exchanges and so on? Because they've been doing 155 00:16:09,775 --> 00:16:14,376 some, they've been seeing some serious action over the last two or three days, haven't they? 156 00:16:14,396 --> 00:16:17,977 Yeah. Obviously, political betting, as you said, political betting is not allowed in the US, 157 00:16:20,162 --> 00:16:24,463 It's a very popular market, certainly around these big elections. And I don't think you 158 00:16:24,483 --> 00:16:31,005 get anything bigger than the US elections. They're always far more of, I should say, spectacle, 159 00:16:31,125 --> 00:16:36,026 I think, than our counterparts in the UK because of them being a lot more personalised. I think 160 00:16:36,066 --> 00:16:40,487 whilst in the UK, obviously things are a lot more on a party basis. Although that has been 161 00:16:40,527 --> 00:16:44,568 changing a lot over the past couple of decades, I think. But still in the US, it's a lot more, 162 00:16:45,069 --> 00:16:50,339 there's a lot more of a media frenzy and a big sort of I don't know, media showdown around 163 00:16:50,419 --> 00:16:53,842 it. There's like I said, there's a lot more of a spectacle. So it makes it a lot more engaging 164 00:16:53,882 --> 00:16:57,946 for a betting side of thing, I think. And this election in particular, obviously we've got 165 00:16:57,966 --> 00:17:05,673 the return of Donald Trump after losing the last one and the various fiery aftermath of 166 00:17:05,713 --> 00:17:10,057 that. And then you've got Kamala Harris on the other hand, who has a lot of, you know, the 167 00:17:10,077 --> 00:17:16,278 potential has become the first ever woman president of the US. So it's a very historic one. There's 168 00:17:16,318 --> 00:17:23,464 been Donald Trump is a figure that obviously is constantly caught in controversy. There's 169 00:17:23,504 --> 00:17:30,049 been all these debates around it stirring up interest. The US elections are always a very 170 00:17:30,109 --> 00:17:34,453 popular betting market. I think all of these factors have just made that even more so. Then 171 00:17:34,553 --> 00:17:38,016 to top it all off on top of that, the thing that's really interesting to follow on the 172 00:17:38,136 --> 00:17:41,879 UK is as you've mentioned with these exchanges, Martin, UK 173 00:17:46,882 --> 00:17:52,806 quite a margin, as in like there's a lot more UK bettors betting in favor of Trump than there 174 00:17:52,866 --> 00:17:58,369 are of Harris, which is interesting because the polls are suggesting that the two are for 175 00:17:58,389 --> 00:18:02,611 the most part neck and neck and a lot of the ones I've seen more often than not are putting 176 00:18:02,651 --> 00:18:10,075 Harris ahead of Trump. So there's a very interesting disconnect between the way the betting exchanges 177 00:18:10,135 --> 00:18:16,262 are expecting it and between how the official opinion polls are expecting it. Yeah, it's 178 00:18:16,322 --> 00:18:20,624 often said that the betting markets are a better guide than the polls to who's going to win 179 00:18:20,644 --> 00:18:26,907 an election, but they don't appear to be reflecting in any way what the pollsters are saying, even 180 00:18:26,947 --> 00:18:31,428 what the reports coming in from on the ground in those US states are saying either. So it'd 181 00:18:31,448 --> 00:18:37,511 be interesting to see whether we actually follow that perceived wisdom on the importance of 182 00:18:37,571 --> 00:18:41,853 political betting markets here. And just one more thing while I've got you Ted. There's 183 00:18:41,893 --> 00:18:48,380 no real impact on the... likely direct impact anyway on the gambling industry from the presidential 184 00:18:48,420 --> 00:18:53,663 election in the US. I'm sure there'll be corporate taxes and things like that will be an issue 185 00:18:53,683 --> 00:18:58,305 down the line. But on your beat, crypto is a big issue in this. What are you expecting to 186 00:18:58,325 --> 00:19:05,049 happen? Well, it will be either Trump or Harris, I guess, but there will be a big story if it's 187 00:19:05,129 --> 00:19:09,851 neither of them. But yeah, what are you expecting? They've talked both quite extensively about 188 00:19:10,692 --> 00:19:14,766 the potential offered by crypto for the US economy, haven't they? Good news for the industry of 189 00:19:14,806 --> 00:19:20,011 Trump wins, do you think? I feel that there are certainly a few stakeholders in the industry 190 00:19:20,051 --> 00:19:26,396 who would feel that way. This election has seen, I think what I would call some unprecedented 191 00:19:26,436 --> 00:19:31,860 levels of activism and campaigning among the crypto sector in the US, at least from what 192 00:19:31,941 --> 00:19:36,544 I can think of, three political action committees that have been very active throughout all of 193 00:19:36,564 --> 00:19:41,528 this. I think obviously to our non-US audiences and any US audiences who are listening can 194 00:19:41,569 --> 00:19:46,187 correct me if I'm wrong. via messaging on LinkedIn or something, I don't know. A political action 195 00:19:46,227 --> 00:19:51,891 committee is an organization that's established to effectively just sort of channel campaign 196 00:19:51,931 --> 00:19:58,835 funds towards certain candidates around who are very active on certain issues. So from 197 00:19:59,175 --> 00:20:03,898 what I've seen for the most part, the Republican candidates, both Donald Trump for the president 198 00:20:03,938 --> 00:20:11,582 and the various ones in the Congress who are also standing this week. The Republicans tend 199 00:20:11,602 --> 00:20:15,084 to be more pro crypto than the Democrats. I think 200 00:20:18,746 --> 00:20:24,509 if Harris is to be elected, we can expect a continuation of how the Biden administration 201 00:20:24,529 --> 00:20:30,793 has been approaching cryptocurrency, which I think would be a cautious approach. I think 202 00:20:30,813 --> 00:20:36,456 it might be an appropriate term for it. Some in the crypto sector view it as even a confrontational 203 00:20:36,476 --> 00:20:41,904 approach and have been quite critical of the... Securities and Exchange Commission's leadership 204 00:20:42,905 --> 00:20:49,110 under Biden, the SEC leadership is appointed by the president, who they accuse of having 205 00:20:49,410 --> 00:20:54,155 an approach to sort of constant enforcement. However, I think obviously on the flip side 206 00:20:54,175 --> 00:20:59,199 of that, the various Democratic politicians probably argue they're concerned about cases 207 00:20:59,239 --> 00:21:07,390 of fraudulent activity, cases of money laundering, cases of securities laws being broken by certain 208 00:21:07,450 --> 00:21:11,453 bad actors, I guess we could say within crypto. And that's the reason for these enforcement 209 00:21:11,493 --> 00:21:17,859 actions. On the Republican side of it, we've had Donald Trump, who has been extremely vocal 210 00:21:17,899 --> 00:21:22,643 about courting cryptocurrency votes. He spoke at the Bitcoin 2024 conference earlier this 211 00:21:22,683 --> 00:21:28,748 year saying about he wants to make the US a Bitcoin superpower. I believe it was his terminology. 212 00:21:30,489 --> 00:21:34,532 If you want to replay that in your head and his voice, I think it would fit quite well. 213 00:21:36,818 --> 00:21:41,100 And then, well, he said he spoke at the Libertarian National Convention earlier this year, saying 214 00:21:41,140 --> 00:21:44,701 something like, I'm going to make sure that the government will never come after all your 215 00:21:44,741 --> 00:21:50,964 Bitcoin. You know, he's been very vocal in courting the sector. But he also really hates central 216 00:21:51,004 --> 00:21:55,446 bank digital currencies, which is an interesting one there, because obviously he sees that as 217 00:21:55,486 --> 00:22:00,909 being, as the term suggests, just far too centralized. And I think, you know, it's more in favor of 218 00:22:00,949 --> 00:22:06,449 like the private market. So yeah, sorry, Martin, I've given you an incredibly long-winded answer 219 00:22:06,469 --> 00:22:10,933 there. But yeah, if Harris gets elected, you can expect more of the same. If Trump gets 220 00:22:10,994 --> 00:22:19,442 elected, you can expect maybe some, yeah, a lot of easing off of regulation around private 221 00:22:19,482 --> 00:22:25,868 cryptocurrency holding, I reckon. Okay. That's interesting. And if I had as many criminal 222 00:22:25,908 --> 00:22:31,227 cases outstanding as... former president, I would be a bit wary about the tracking that 223 00:22:31,247 --> 00:22:40,551 comes with CBDCs as well. It's perhaps understandable. Well, Ted, thank you for joining me today to 224 00:22:40,591 --> 00:22:47,514 discuss this. Hopefully by the time we reconvene next week, there will be an outright winner 225 00:22:47,534 --> 00:22:52,056 in the US election. We might have some of the problems we saw last time around. But thank 226 00:22:52,097 --> 00:22:58,610 you all for listening. join the iGamingDaily team for another edition tomorrow. Thank you.