If the point of regulation was to get criminals out of the picture, then this is a massive fail. It's kind of like the "overdraft protection" racket all the banks like Wells Fargo were running, where they "protect" you by stacking your purchases in the order that gives you the most overdrafts possible.
Step 1: Find some loosely regulated sector where people want more customer protection.
Step 2: Regulate the existing companies out of business.
Step 3: Deregulate and let your buddies come in and do the same thing, only much worse because they don't have any competition, so instead of having to compete in the free market they only have to answer to some congressional committee that can all be bribed for $40k and a weekend in the Bahamas.
In Alderney, Malta, Jersey, Curacao, etc., anybody with a clean record and enough cash can get licensed. That might be an open door to criminals some of the time, but at least it's open to good operators too. The style of regulation the US is creating is only open to the richest crooks on the planet. An honest company - and forget about a new company or a startup, or anyone who's gonna actually compete on quality or RTP, doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting a foot in that door.
The picture gets a little cloudier when you throw in crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, though. I wouldn't be surprised if the US gov't eventually declared Bitcoins a form of terrorism (in the name of the children, obviously), just to protect their filthy rich corporate masters from any kind of competition. In the meanwhile, though, it should be an interesting few years. We don't take US players because I personally have no desire to test those waters, or the bankroll to fight the government in court, but it's clear to me that Bitcoin is going to be adopted quickly over there, because the tighter the government squeezes, the more websites and individual players are going to be looking for new ways to slip through their fingers.
)
