Post
Topic
Board Gambling discussion
Re: Platform refusing to benefit from gambling
by
Mindyspace
on 07/09/2025, 21:27:36 UTC

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?