eGold to block US players

**jetset** · 22nd February 2007, 12:37 PM

eGOLD TO BLOCK U.S. PLAYERS

Technology will help merchants lock out American online gamblers.

Third party payment company eGold has announced that it is to use technology to prevent US players from using its financial facilities in online gambling transactions as a result of the US Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act requirements.

In a move to comply with the Act, the company has added a software option for all merchant accounts that will prevent gaming companies from allowing US account holder payments.

The company announcement comments: "With the objective of preventing the use of e-gold by United States persons for unlawful online gambling, e-gold has deployed a feature whereby any e-gold account holder may configure their e-gold account(s) to block incoming e-gold Spends from accounts controlled by Users residing inside the United States or who are accessing the Internet from within the United States. Online gambling businesses using e-gold are now required to enable this new account attribute."

**Cynthia777** · 22nd February 2007, 03:47 PM

any idea which casinos do use e-gold? (Maybe the reason for all the recent declines in Microgaming casinos, that USED TO BE no problem at all)

**Cynthia777** · 22nd February 2007, 04:26 PM

actually, may have found an answer to my own question. I went to the official eGold site http://www.e-gold.com/, then found a link to their "Gold Pages E-Currency Directory" http://www.gold-pages.net/ .

Checked the category "Casinos". Most of these casinos I have never heard of (has 3 pages), except for the dearly missed "Global Player Casino", and another favorite "Roxy Palace" (which may very well explain the sudden declines of my deposits with my Netspend card, which I successfully used in the past at Roxy). This takes me back to when I inquired about this to Roxy's support. The agent responded that they were "using a new Gateway Processor", which we now know is E-Gold according to the directory. Based on the content of the article that Jetset posted, this must be the reason deposits are being declined.

I am now wondering if the majority of MG casinos have made this switch to eGold, thus explaining all of the deposit declines lately. I honestly believe that it is a reason such as this (the payment processor) and NOT the credit card or MC/Visa (at least in Netspend's and Wired Plastic's respect), because I can still use them at RTG casinos and other software.

Wondering if this was some type of contract bid, maybe appealed to MG cost-wise, without MG knowing what a drastic reduction in business/profit this may have potentially resulted in.

**Cynthia777** · 22nd February 2007, 06:43 PM

OK...this may be merely speculative, and somewhat off-thread but very relative to the topic of payment processors and the recent changes with MG transactions. Please know that this is based strictly on opinion from what I have seen when researching and all quotes are indicated as such with accompanying resources/website links. My comments and questions on this post is of an "editorial" nature. Sorry, just wanted to make that part clear

Brian, please also feel free to tell me what your take is on this.

In light of the recently announced (Feb. 7) acquisition of Netgiro Systems AB by DataCash Group PLC, who also acquired Proc-Cyber Services (Microgaming's primary payment processor) in June of last year, do you think that this has had an impact/effect of U.S. players' transactions?

Consider the following: (any areas marked in red I have highlighted for emphasis)

Although the significant changes did not take place until beginning two or three months ago, (certainly brought about by the passage of the SAFE Port Act and its provisions concerning online gambling), DataCash issued this statement shortly after the Act's passage concerning U.S. gaming:

From: http://www.datacash.com/news/021006.php

The Board of DataCash Group has noted the share price reaction to the passing by Congress of the Safe Port Act and makes the following comments:

The Group currently receives approximately 30% of its revenues from US originated payments down from 45% in December 2005. For the avoidance of doubt, the Group does not and has not supported sports book betting transactions originating in the US. The Group strategy has been to reduce the dependence on US gaming and further evidence of this trend can be shown by the growth rates of the non-US gaming business as a percentage of DataCash's total growth pro rata over the past 12 months, currently running at 74% compared to the US gaming growth rate of approximately 26%.

Of course, I am sure that we would have been playing and depositing as easily as we were a year ago without the passage of that Act. However, I can see the nonchalant attitude towards the U.S. player database (especially since this big-money acquisition was announced), and the "cover your a*s" undertones in the statement.

Just odd, too, that two weeks ago (around Feb. 7th, the announcement date) is when I started having problems depositing.

I may really be reading into things, but with all the changes lately, I would not be surprised. I hope that my take on the following is not what I think it may be...

Taken from: http://www.microgaming.com/pressrelease_183.php

MAJOR INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS RESPONSIBLE ONLINE GAMBLING PROCEDURES PROPOSED

LONDON - A new global initiative and international code of conduct to address responsible online gambling procedures is under discussion by the industry following a top-level roundtable discussion held at a recent London trade show. The roundtable, convened by market leading software developer Microgaming, discussed the need to review what is currently being done by the industry and how a single common code might be created and implemented globally. The resulting draft code of practice is likely to cover individual operating sites as well as software providers. ....
...Roger Raatgever, CEO, Microgaming, comments, "Contrary to some reporting on this industry, much is already being done to address issues surrounding responsible online gambling. However, we recognise that the current situation of having a number of codes of practice covering a diverse range of areas is not ideal for the industry or the players. The formation of one clearly defined international code demonstrating best practice with a unified voice will strengthen communication to both the players and the industry as a whole."

Sounds great...but this is my worst fear...
Translation: "some Microgaming casinos still accept U.S. players, some do not...we need to follow one rule across the board, primarily with the passage of the SAFE Port Act and the ambiguity surrounding it and payment processors, etc."
Result: Microgaming licensees are to restrict U.S. players PERIOD.

**jetset** · 22nd February 2007, 07:29 PM

Cynthia, I think you are reaching too far here when you try to interpret the Microgaming hosted round table as a bid to coordinate a ban on US players.

I was at this meeting in London, and I can assure you that the professional managers from a range of companies who sat around the table did not have the US banning situation as a goal or concept at any stage.

The raison d'etre for the initiative was focused on reducing the possibilities of online gambling wherever possible in regards to underage or problem gamblers and ranged from excluding this category from sites, helping those that develop a problem to identify it and actively promoting responsible gaming mechanisms for the benefit of both the afflicted and the industry.

This was all about responsible gambling. Representatives from some of the biggest groups in the business, regardless of their competitive interests were trying to get to grips with this important subject and suggest practical ways and means, aided by the presence of very clued up folks from Gamcare and other relevant public associations and bodies.

As the releases put out subsequent to the round table explained, Gamcare and eCOGRA were given the task of deeper research and formulating a response to the challenges here which will be further developed at a future meeting.

**Cynthia777** · 23rd February 2007, 01:57 AM

Glad and relieved to hear it...especially since you were there. Like I said, it (anything in the negative sense) was just a thought I hoped was not true

**Cynthia777** · 23rd February 2007, 02:07 AM

How about the issue of the DataCash acquisition then, do you think that the most recent problems with trying to deposit with MG (i.e. via debit cards that used to work up until a couple of weeks ago/Netspend) are due to this, considering the announcement date of Feb. 7th? Perhaps the change in payment processor/Gateway was one for the "stricter" (didn't want to take a chance in accepting U.S. bets via debit/credit card)?

**jetset** · 23rd February 2007, 06:47 AM

Afraid I have no idea - I haven't been following this Datacash story, but I understand that Microgaming licensees, like their contemporaries licensed by other software providers, do not have to use particular financial processors - as owners of their sites they have full authority to decide what financial systems they will, or will not use.

So it may be something to do with individual business decisions....or maybe as you speculate something to do with the the financial sector. I don't know.

In a business sense it would not surprise me if individual operators who get on well together exchanged views on operational issues like the US situation - that's not unusual in business, even among competitors when there's a common crisis.

Edited to add that this is a dynamic situation which everyone is trying to handle as best they can - noone wants to lose business if they c an possibly avoid it.

**Cynthia777** · 23rd February 2007, 02:41 PM

Thank you for your take on this, Brian. It is appreciated and valued as I view you as a reputable, informative poster here.

I usually try to avoid speculating in my threads and posts. Given the situation with the changes that we in the U.S. have been going through since this Act's passage, coupled with the frustration of not being able to deposit/play, even at casinos that still accept U.S. players, ...it was difficult to not provide the info I found as "food for thought" if not anything else.

It would be interesting if anyone could provide a link/site that lists which processors casinos use, and compare the success of being able to deposit through each.

**jetset** · 23rd February 2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cynthia777

Thank you for your take on this, Brian. It is appreciated and valued as I view you as a reputable, informative poster here.

I usually try to avoid speculating in my threads and posts. Given the situation with the changes that we in the U.S. have been going through since this Act's passage, coupled with the frustration of not being able to deposit/play, even at casinos that still accept U.S. players, ...it was difficult to not provide the info I found as "food for thought" if not anything else.

It would be interesting if anyone could provide a link/site that lists which processors casinos use, and compare the success of being able to deposit through each.

The first part of that sounds like a good idea, and maybe one of the well-staffed outfits like Casino City could undertake it as a useful research project and an additional information facility for players - I'll pass it on.