Burning Diamonds

About Burning Diamonds

Having received its licence in Peru in August 2024, Escobar argues Stake’s global scale delivers an advantage only when it is paired with a deep understanding of the Peruvian market and its players.

“We benefit from world-class technology, a market-leading product and one of the strongest brands in the industry, but success isn’t achieved simply by bringing a global platform into a new market,” Escobar says. “We’ve invested heavily in understanding Peruvian players, building local partnerships, working with creators, supporting football and tailoring our marketing and customer experience to local preferences.

“That balance between global capability and local relevance has allowed us to establish a strong position in one of Latin America’s most competitive markets.”

How to play Burning Diamonds

Sponsorships and advertising with sports teams was also flagged as according to the report, voluntary efforts had failed to reduce the industry’s exposure. 

With int he report Dr Matt Gaskell MBE observed that “overall exposure (including shirts, hoardings, logos, sponsorship and related marketing) during live sports programmes does not show that self-regulation has reduced exposure meaningfully”. 

Voluntary efforts have included Premier League football opting to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships, as of the beginning of this current season. Although, branding remains on training kits, shirt sleeves and across stadium advertisements. 

How to play Burning Diamonds

Days after the US Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sent a new rulemaking package on crypto markets for review to the White House.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received the filing on September 17, which is titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets.” The proposal remains in the early stages, and the details are not yet public, as reported by The Block. 

The move came shortly after the Senate declined to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act. The procedural vote on September 15 rejected it with 49-50, not meeting the 60 votes required to move forward.