Villa's new sponsorship deal is a little concerning
Aston Villa have announced a new sponsorship with Duelbits - a cryptocurrency casino who will become the club's European Betting Partner.
Funnily enough, I can't access the site in the UK (European country).
Having read up on Duelbits, I'm slightly concerned - and here -in my own opinion - is why.
What's the deal?
Two clubs with newly 'minted' crypto sponsors face each other this weekend as Everton (Stake.com) play Villa (Duelbits).
Duelbits, like Stake, are a crypto casino. At face value, there should be nothing wrong with that. Crypto is a 'thing' now. Casinos have been a 'thing' forever. Gambling, for fun, is fine.
What's interesting is that Villa have labelled Duelbits as a crypto casino, whereas Everton seemed very reluctant to name Stake - a crypto casino - as such in their own statement announcing sponsorship.
Joey D'Urso of the Athletic reported on Everton's sponsorship with Stake - and you should read the full report.
UK bookies don't often accept cryptocurrency as a form of payment. This is because the gambling regulator in the UK has struggled with crypto firms being able to provide proof-of-funds and it believes that crypto use carries large risks of money laundering and illegal activity - which isn't totally new. Vices and money laundering have went hand-in-hand for eons. It's just that this is new, and it's a little different.
I'm not inherently against crypto. For full disclosure, I bought a £6 NFT for an article I want to write on Indy100. I have about £100 total of Cardano, Ethereum and TRX, mostly bought when I was bored in the 2020 lockdown. I don't think there's hypocrisy in looking into these things, and participating in them, alongside critiquing them. That's for you to decide though.
However, the gambling 'meta' is being encouraged by streamers and is running riot. There's no need for a moral panic, and full need for responsibility - but what happens when addictive online environments intersect with gambling?
I don't exactly need to tell you, do I?
The problem
As for Duelbits, for me, the problems are as follows.
Firstly, there is an inherent lack of clarity involved with both crypto and offshore companies. Gambling firms use 'white label' agreements to operate on the edge of regulations.
Many crypto casinos including Duelbits, alongside Stake, are registered in Curacao, where gambling regulations are not as tight as say in the UK or US.
You can't actually access Duelbits in the UK. As for the US, The use of these sites is restricted - making playing on them illegal. VPN usage is encouraged by Google searches for crypto casinos and how to access them.
There is a clear appeal to a younger audience, and that is seemingly by design, but there's an issue.
Targeting Gen Z users increases risk of marketing gambling to minors, because the entire generation will likely spend their recreation time in the same or similar environments.
Duelbits has self-admitted to targeting the Gen Z audience (9 - 24) - and a press release seems to pride on capturing the 'younger' market.
It is my opinion that you can't aim for 'Gen Z' and simply hope it doesn't attract minors. The marketing for Gen Z is simply marketing for Gen Z.
There is a determined effort by crypto casinos to appeal directly to that young demographic as well - by using streamers and Twitch. A project that has involved the creation of a 'gambling meta' on the streaming platform.
Duelbits is one of a number of crypto casinos that faced allegations of using Twitch and streamers such as Adin Ross to market their product. The Twitch audience is 41% populated by people in the age range 16 - 24.
According to Wired, Ross was offered between $1.4 million and $1.6 million a month to stream slots on Twitch. Wired also found that 64 of the top 1k Twitch Partner streams were of slots or gambling in May 2021, with some attracting more than 100k viewers. Many of these streams potentially used 'house money' to showcase a fun casino environment to viewers.
This is all in spite of these sites being restricted in the US, and thus illegal. Payment offers and streams did not stop, because it's a gold rush.
Streamers marketed crypto gambling products including Stake to young audiences. These audiences then spent their money, which they didn't have. Why?
Gen Z viewers are loyal to their favourite Twitch and Youtube accounts. There is a parasocial attachment, that can be manipulated by sponsors. No matter if it's an energy drink, a streamed video game, or crypto, subscribers will back the product - as they are backing their online faves. To blend the loyalty of stream viewers, video-game hype environments and the cult-like following of crypto into a casino environment is to court a serious issue. For sure, Bloomberg noted that stream viewers were very quick to throw away their life savings because of promotions, and then take out loans to cover that loss, before filing for bankruptcy. All the while, big streamers were raking in dough because of affiliate codes offered by crypto casinos.
It's not just streamers though. Drake pulled in millions of views when he partnered up with Stake for a gambling meta stream.
It's a good thing the world is rolling in dough, though. Right?
Well, in the UK, the cost of living crisis is eating into middle-class wages and devouring working-class ones. There is no good time for football clubs to promote gambling to a vulnerable audience - but you couldn't pick a poorer time than now to do so. Especially ones that are capitalising on the addictive nature of crypto, videogames and social media.
During hard times, people spend more money on luck-based gambling and that can lead to a spiral of attempting to recoup costs. As evidenced above that can be an issue in crypto gambling, and in crypto itself where education tends to be lacking.
Take Luna for instance, where people bought in when it dropped from 100s to a penny, thinking it could only go up in price. They didn't realise it could then drop into decimal places to be worth a tenth of a penny, and drop again.
Casino, meet casino.
The worst case scenario here is that a crypto casino is 'inadvertently' promoted to young users. With branding, cult-like crypto hype - what measures are in place to ensure users who aren't of age are unable to gamble?
So what?
Honestly, Duelbits can do what they want - it was Villa's choice to enter a deal with them and that's my problem. It's up to regulators to lay down the rules, and if they don't, companies will skirt them.
Football clubs need to make money and money isn't freeflowing these days.
I don't think Villa are a bad club, or badly run, or badly operated at all. They sought the best deal possible for the club, which needs to increase revenue streams.
However, I have my doubts that brands such as Stake and Duelbits are positive influences on their users. Based on their actions, operations and allegations against them as well as reporting, I find it slightly sad that they are involved with the club.
It may not be the outline intention of gambling firms to be predatory, but the fact is - they are. Now, they are entering the realm of Gen Z - a generation that has grew up with gambling adverts everywhere, and actual gambling in video games like FIFA Ultimate Team.
New gambling firms sprout up for one reason only: to make a quick buck. There's no service provided. They aren't making new games. They see fertile opportunity in convincing the youngest of us that you, yes you, can make it big on the slots.
I feel such things should be as far away from Villa as possible - and while they may be a business, there should be an ethical line here.
If Villa are that big, they can certainly make money elsewhere. Just probably not as much as Duelbits are offering.
However, I don't see the benefit for Villa fans in this. At least with Socios (and the collapse in price of the Villa coin), you could vote for a bloody training pitch.