Platform refusing to benefit from gambling

[peter0425]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

[Rruchi man]

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

They are making the right choice by choosing not to exploit the addiction of gamblers who would jump on this service to fund their gambling whenever they are unable to do so because a platform has that offer.

Gambling is not a need but a want, and since it is in the company's commitment to help people with needs, it is wise to keep that within the limits of the most important, which are food, shelter, and clothing.

[Fiatless]

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Yes, Atome made the right decision.  I don't think it is ethical for a company that offers online credit or loans to allow gamblers to have access to their services. Such a payback service could make people gamble excessively.

Also, Atome’s refusal to allow gamblers to use their services attracts more customers to them. The Philippines has many Christians who are against gambling. These religious people would be attracted to Atome because of their stance on gambling.

[Perfectbaby]

This is a good decision made by them to limits access to gamblers other it would be an easy way to fuel gamblers and in gambling the winning are not always certain which I know many gambler would get a loan and never payback. Atome has made the best decision to limit gamblers from getting access to their platform and again it would boost their platform growth and increase reliability whereby more credible would like to make use of their site.

[yahoo62278]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Not everyone is motivated by gambling or huge profits that might come with it. Some genuinely care about people and families and what certain activities can do to a family if not managed properly.

Are they missing out on a cash grab? Yes, but they may bring in new clients that appreciate that that's not what they're all about.

[Su-asa]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

I don't see any errors there, they have the right to refuse and to agree with gambling platforms. However it is their business, they know that if they allowed it few more people will gamble irresponsible. From the look of things here, it looks like the Singapore based finical technology is just trying to help it country by not allowing the gambling through their platform because like I have said, few more will become addicted.

[un_rank]

It was a personal choice not to add it initially, but due to regulations in the country they cannot legally dd a payment gateway for gambling websites. It is a surprise the article is posted now, it possibly is a promotion to try getting more users.

It is also a surprise to see that the article was updated at an earlier date than when it was published. That is a very peculiar error to be made by the website.

- Jay -

[Findingnemo]

No sensible person will lend money for gambling and the same logic he applied in this case because if he allowed pay later option then people will just use it and if they lost then they will just close their account and the compnay will just deal with the defaults so he is making the right move by saying no. And there is nothing to debate about this even some countries and their banks have rules like they are not allowing their cards for gambling deposits and this is no different from it.

[Proty]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Yes they made the right choice because I believe if they were to be helping gamblers to pay for gambling, they will end up encouraging gambling addiction. So many gamblers will keep on gambling and losing and going back again. There decision was purely not  motivated by greed but rather they really show concern for there customer because I believe they know the negative effects that it will have on there customer. Also the CEO have a good understanding of what gambling is and the need not to treat it as a necessity.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

They are definitely making the right choice to be honest with, and this opinion is based on my own personal understanding of how the pay later business works, clients will be susceptible or be more willing to pay for something that they are seeing and are benefitting from or have benefited greatly from, but for gambling, I can tell you that it's only gamblers who win the game that will likely pay back the money simply because they won, those who lost will likely not be moved to pay back..

Except there are majors the company is going to employ to ensure that every one pays the money they owe the company no matter their financial situation, but all the same, it's still best as the company have choosen to avoid whatever is related gambling as it's not even ideal ethically.. This may be seen that the company is supporting the act of borrowing to gamble, which is an activity we all highly discourage people from getting involved in.

[Slow death]

I see that if a company is profitable and also thinks about seeing people mentally healthy, then taking measures that enable a reduction in cases of addiction is always very welcome. I just hope that the company is really being serious and not just making statements in the press to gain people's attention while behind the scenes they make other decisions. Because I've seen many cases where companies pose in the media as companies that want the well-being of people while behind the scenes they are acting badly.

[Mia Chloe]

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Humans are super quick to attribute blames of their problems to others and this simply means if they eventually run into addiction they won't hesitate to pass the blame to the source of the funds and it's quite logical. Frankly speaking , gambling is not actually a necessity making it one in the first place is a bold step towards addiction.

I believe they are basically trying to avoid anything that will fuel addiction. I think a gambler is more responsible when he's gambling with his funds compared to what he may get freely and probably not value.

[AmoreJaz]

I see that if a company is profitable and also thinks about seeing people mentally healthy, then taking measures that enable a reduction in cases of addiction is always very welcome. I just hope that the company is really being serious and not just making statements in the press to gain people's attention while behind the scenes they make other decisions. Because I've seen many cases where companies pose in the media as companies that want the well-being of people while behind the scenes they are acting badly.

We can't avoid such tactics by the companies because like it or not, most of them are after for their profits of their business. Hence, they may be building their image from the eyes of the public but behind the curtain, they are trying to exhaust their profits from the people as much as they can. So it is up to the public how they will act on their activities.

No sensible person will lend money for gambling and the same logic he applied in this case because if he allowed pay later option then people will just use it and if they lost then they will just close their account and the compnay will just deal with the defaults so he is making the right move by saying no. And there is nothing to debate about this even some countries and their banks have rules like they are not allowing their cards for gambling deposits and this is no different from it.

As we have seen, most banks don't really allow deposits known to come from gambling sources. Even in online banking, some exchanges are not accepting deposits from gambling sites. They have their prerogative not to accept because they have their own set of rules when it comes to deposits and withdrawals.

[Felicity_Tide]

~snip

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Every business has it's own ethics and principles. Though, I'm quite surprised that a fintech company (probably one of the best), choose not to offer gambling payment related service despite the profits involve. Majority of all companies that offers similar service don't even put their customers at heart that much. The primary aim of every establishment is to make profit, so if this particular fintech company choose to avoid gambling related transaction activities, then I guess it is a good choice. And of course, they are indirectly helping gamblers, but there are other options, so it won't be that effective.

[Odogwu-Blockchain]

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Should be that Atome is a private owned company that really wants to solve the tech industry problems not using the opportunity to leverage on gambling addicts whose emotions can't be controlled. If Atome is a governmental company, then the option to deposit on a gambling site would've been integrated for sure.

[Alphakilo]

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Why does it matter if we think whether they are right or not. Maybe it is a personal principle for the CEO or a core value of their organization, whatever be the case, he knows why and that is none of our business. Infact, I do like that they are doing what they are doing because in a way it means, the decrease in the likelihood for impulsive gambling to be encourage due to the convenience of getting money.

If I start a fintech business of any sort, not that I would discriminate against gamblers but I will have a system to screen those with a history of gambling addiction of impulsive gambling out of some benefits such as "speedcash" . Yes, I will have a system called that.

[Mindyspace]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

Look, I think Atome is making a very conscious choice. They could make a lot of money by including games, but they chose not to encourage something that could end up becoming a problem for many people. This shows that the company is thinking more about the well-being of people than just profit, and that's rare these days.

Yes, they're giving up a large market, but they're also building a more trustworthy image. And ultimately, this may even attract more customers who feel secure using a service that doesn't push them into easy debt.

I think some people will still play anyway, but a fintech refusing to finance this might help people think twice before spending impulsively.

But should other companies follow this example or really open it up to all types of spending? Is this an obvious question?

[adultcrypto]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

I don't know what his reasons for refusing gambling are but I feel he is being too emotional with business. He has no right to decide what people use their money for and what constitute a necessity for people. I believe their will be alternatives for gamblers in that country and he will be the biggest loser in the game. What makes him think that gambling is bad? No problems, let him keep his platform, that will not stop gambling.

[Hispo]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

As financial decision it is questionable, as all companies and businesses always try to increase their profits, as long as it is legal to do so, this is rather a moral choice of the CEO of the company and a way for the company to bring more awareness of the problem of gambling addiction in their society and pretty much in all Asia.
Ultimately, the decision of asking for a loan in order to gamble is up to the gambler himself and it does not have anything to do with the bank or credit card company, responsibility of our money comes down to us and not our bank, we are the ones who need to be strong enough to realize what it is wrong and what it is right.
I applaud the integrity of this CEO, but it does not solve the problem of gambling addiction, people will always find sources of liquidity and loans of they search long enough.

[Stepstowealth]

Even if online gambling could significantly boost its earnings, Singapore-based financial technology (fintech) firm Atome stands firm on giving no platform to e-gamblers as it eyes growing its client base to more than two million by year-end.

Atome is a pay later card where they claim to help their customers to pay for what they need in their lives. Its CEO claims that there is no need to help people pay for gambling because it is not a necessity even though he knows that if he allows gambling to be part of their system, they will rake in huge profits.

Do you think they are making the right choice? Are they helping gamblers become more responsible or are they just missing out?

I don't know what his reasons for refusing gambling are but I feel he is being too emotional with business.

He may actually be making a good decision for his business knowing that no amount of money giving to a chronic gambler will be enough for him, and because of how much a gambler must have gotten in debt even before they win something, they may never be able to fully pay back what they have collected. To avoid the stress, simply just focus on people who you know have a higher chance of being responsible because of their needs which are more important than gambling.

If there is another platform that is willing to offer these help to gamblers, it is okay to do so. Competition is good for the economy.