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?
The CEO has said the right thing that gambling is not a necessity and I think that is the image that they want to push out to the public regarding the services that they want to render.
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.
I don't think that should be there reason. Human device means to cheat whether rules or not. So it is not only on gambling that people can abandon their cards if they lose. Those who have also bought necessary items with their cards can also decide to default and run away. It is something that has to do with conscience.
However, I believe they should have guarantors for each card user, at least two guarantors. So with guarantors, they can redeem their credit from defaulters, it is as simple as that but I think the company doesn't want to associate with gambling and that is why they are avoiding it.
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.
Apart from gambling credit, I have seen people who have got credit from banks as soft loan for business and have defaulted. They abandon their agreement. The bank may choose to ignore it if the amount is small and doesn't worth the huddle or hussle.