Crypto Casino
Torrent Gear
Comparison with Peru and Colombia (Ecuador)
Comparison with Peru and Colombia
Ecuador has been living with a complete ban on land-based casinos since 2011 and with the "gray" status of online casinos (slots, live games), while sports betting has already received a "white" mode. Neighbors went the other way: Colombia was the first in the region to build a full-fledged regulated online market, and Peru in 2023-2024. adopted and implemented a "comprehensive box" for online and completed setting up offline rules. Below is a structural comparison and conclusions for Ecuador.
Summary in one look
(RG - Responsible Gambling: self-exclusion, limits, player protection.)
Regulatory architecture
Ecuador
Offline: ban; discussions about a possible "narrow" model (for example, only 5-hotels) periodically return, but the basic norm is closure.
Online: casino vertical without a national license; sports betting - with a separate "white" regime.
Practice: part of the demand goes to offshore sites and underground "gate" points (offline cash desk ↔ online game).
Peru
Offline and online are regulated in conjunction: the law + by-laws set uniform requirements for licensing, technical certification, KYC/AML and RG.
Plus: the sewerage of traffic from the "gray" sector to the licensed one, the growth of transparency of payments and payments.
Important: the regulations provide for marketing rules (responsible advertising) and technical control of content/payment providers.
Colombia
Coljuegos is one of the most mature LatAm regulators.
Online is completely in the legal field: national domains, public lists of permitted operators/providers, mechanisms for blocking illegal immigrants, RG standards.
The result: a consistently high level of sewage demand in the "white" sector and the projected fiscal return.
Taxes and fees: not about the "rate," but about collection
Neighbors focus on gross gaming income (GGR) tax, license fees and clear reporting. The key is administration (realtime reports, integration of payment gateways, content audit), and not just the interest rate.
Ecuador already has a GGR approach to sports betting; there is no such "box" for online casinos - hence the "leak" offshore.
Player protection and advertising rules
Colombia/Peru: mandatory RG tools (self-exclusion, deposit/time limits), verification standards (KYC), advertising and sponsorship rules, age filters, warnings.
Ecuador: in lotteries and sports - there are "white" practices; in online casinos it all depends on the offshore site (uneven standards).
Law enforcement and combating illegal immigrants
Colombia: the combination of domain blocking, payment filtering and public registries increases the cost of shadow care.
Peru: Technical oversight and licensing of game/payment providers reduce grey gateways.
Ecuador: the main "optics" are aimed at underground offline and fiscalization of sports; total filtering of offshore casino traffic is more difficult without a separate law.
Tourism and nightlife economics
Peru and Colombia: offline casinos are part of the night economy and MICE package of large cities; these are jobs "on the ground" (F&B, taxis, events), an increase in ADR/RevPAR of 4-5.
Ecuador: after 2011 this "anchor" is lost; hotels have to replace it with cultural/gastro-events and a wellness product - this is useful, but the multiplier and employment profile are different.
What Ecuador can learn (if the goal is less "gray" and more protection)
1. "Full box" for online. Unified law and by-law: licenses, technical certification, control of content and payment providers, RG, marketing.
2. Payment integration. Registers of approved payment metodіv, risk filters, GGR API reporting - this increases collection and reduces "quasi-P2P."
3. Public registries and blocklists. The visibility of "who is allowed" and "who is blocked" increases player confidence and disciplines the market.
4. Responsible advertising. Uniform rules for creativity, targeting and sponsorship (especially in football) - so that the growth of the "white" segment does not provoke vulnerable groups.
5. Road map for offline (optional). If we discuss the point tolerance of offline (for example, only 5-hotels), then immediately with high inspection standards, KYC/AML and RG - otherwise the return will feed the "gray" periphery.
Frequent questions
Why do Peru and Colombia have less gray online?
Because they have a national license for online, transparent lists of legal operators and system blocking/financial monitoring tools.
Is it enough just to raise the tax?
No, it isn't. Without technical reporting, provider control and payment filtering, a high rate only increases incentives to go into the shadows.
Is it possible to copy someone else's model "as is"?
It is better to adapt: take into account the dollar economy of Ecuador, the distribution of roles between departments and local goals (social funds, tourism, protection of the vulnerable).
Ecuador differs from Peru and Colombia primarily by the lack of a single "box" for online casinos and the ban on offline. Neighbors have shown that regulation + supervision + payment integration + RG are capable of displacing the "gray" market into the "white," stabilizing the budget and increasing the protection of players. For Ecuador, the key choice remains: either continue the "point" approach (lotteries + sports + antipodpole), or move towards a comprehensive model of online (and possibly narrow offline) - with a technological base, transparent advertising and strong responsibility to society.