Impact of the ban on the economy and tourism (Venezuela)

The forbidden model in the gambling sector is traditionally declared as a tool to protect society. In practice, it often creates structural distortions: withdrawal of demand offshore and "underground," a decrease in the tax base, a break in payment chains, an increase in compliance risks and a loss of tourist potential. For Venezuela, where the share of mobile audience is high and alternative payment practices (including stablecoins) are widespread, the effects of the ban are increasing.

Economy: Where money is lost

1) Lost fiscal revenue

Non-received taxes on GGR (gross gaming income), license fees, deductions for social programs.

Indirect taxes (VAT/analogue, income tax, contributions for employees) - disappear together with legal operators.

Multiplier effect: marketing, IT outsourcing, call centers, local content studios - all this does not scale without a legal framework.

2) Shadow market growth

Offshore sites replace legal products: money goes abroad, payments are fragmented.

Underground halls create risks for consumers: there is no KYC/AML, guarantees of payments, tools for responsible play.

Pricing out of control: bonus "race" without rules, aggressive targeting of vulnerable groups.

3) Destabilization of payment flows

Complex on/off-ramps (crypto, informal transfers) → the regulator does not see volumes, and consumers bear operational risks.

Lack of "white lists" of PSP/ → providers is more likely to fraud and disputes.

4) Employment and human capital

Reduction of formal employment: dealers, pit-boss, hall managers, marketers, risk analysts, compliance.

Leakage of competencies: specialists go to neighboring jurisdictions or to the "gray" segment without social guarantees.

Tourism: lost value added

1) Casino + hotel + events package

The MICE segment (conferences, exhibitions), which often "sits" on the entertainment infrastructure, chooses other countries.

Decrease in average tourist spending: there is no attraction of VIP clients, game shows, gastronomic events for casino resorts.

2) Geography and image

The Caribbean coast and Andes could be a "stage" for entertainment clusters. When banned, this scene is empty.

Image of the region: international operators and brands are a marker of trust and quality of service. Their absence reduces the attractiveness of the direction.

3) Service chains

Transport, F&B, event agencies, artists, security, cleaning, technical support - short contracts and seasons disappear along with casino traffic.

Social and regulatory effects of prohibition

Weak player protection: self-exclusion, limits, proven providers - all this works only in the "white" sector.

AML risks: opaque translation channels, pseudo-PSP, "manual" cashouts.

Enforcement: Domain and ad locks only partially catch up with demand; demand flows into instant messengers and VPNs.

Who loses and who wins when banned

Stakeholder	Loses/Wins	For what reason
State/Budget	Loses	The tax base is leaving, control costs are growing
Legal business	Loses	You cannot invest and scale the service
Consumer	Loses	No guarantees of payments, protection, honest advertising
Shadow intermediaries	Win	Monopolize access, dictate "rules"
Offshore operators	Win	Take revenue without local obligations

Model estimates (illustrative approach, not statistics)

Suppose that N adult users make an average of X bets per month, the average operator margin income (GGR) is m%. Even with a moderate GGR tax of 15-20% and royalties, fiscal revenues can be comparable to millions of dollars a year already with partial "detenization." These funds can be directed to responsible play funds, sports and culture, as well as the modernization of tourism infrastructure. The ban leaves these flows out of budget.

Tourist 'missed opportunities'

1. Resort mini-clusters (at hotels 4-5): playrooms + restaurants + concert stages → ADR/RevPAR growth and length of stay.

2. Gaming festivals/poker series (in shoulder seasons): hotel occupancy at the "low" time of year.

3. Collaborations with natural and gastronomic routes (Caribbean/Andean valleys): "casino-evening" as part of the package.

4. Sea traffic: liners and charters are more willing to choose ports with a rich evening program.

Why a "partial ban" doesn't work either

It stimulates "regulatory arbitration": players and money go where it is easier.

It does not give scale for compliance: expensive monitoring, reporting and responsible game systems pay off only in a wide legal base.

Supports "gray" channels: advertising networks and pseudo-aggregators continue to work offshore.

Alternatives to prohibition: scenario analysis

A) Status quo (strict ban)

Pros: Politically "simple" message.

Cons: fiscal losses, shadow activity, lack of control.

B) Point liberalization (limited number of licenses, pilots)

Pros: fast start, IT reporting testing, self-exclusion center.

Risks: lobbying wars for quotas, the risk of "quasi-monopolies."

C) Managed legalization (recommended)

Balanced tax on GGR, register of brands/domains/PSP, "white lists" of providers, mandatory tools for responsible play, live audit of reporting.

Result: return of demand in the "white" sector, investment in tourism and employment, reducing the vulnerability of players.

What to do: 12-24 month roadmap

1. Normative framework (0-3 months)

License categories (sports, RNG casino, live, fantasy/esports, B2B).

GGR tax, bonus rules, KYC/AML, self-exclusion center.

Public registry: brands, domains, providers, PSP.

2. Institutionalization (3-6 months)

Regulator with real-time reporting, API for monitoring turnover.

"White lists" of laboratories and payment partners.

Hotline and Dispute Ombudsman.

3. Pilots/sandbox (6-12 months)

3-5 operators B2C + B2B providers; reporting stress tests.

Control of advertising (target audience, frequency, transparency of conditions).

4. Scaling (12-24 months)

License competitions, KPIs for player protection and tourism investments.

Revision of rates/rules based on pilot results.

KPIs and Success Metrics

Fiscal: GGR tax, licence fees, indirect taxes.

Game safety: share of active players with established limits; appeals to the help center; average support response time.

Industry: number of licensed brands/providers, average cashout rate.

Tourist: loading hotels in shoulder seasons, average spending per guest, the number of MICE events.

Enforcement: share of blocked illegal domains/advertising creatives, response rate.

Risks and ways to mitigate them

Social risks/gambling addiction: default limits, mandatory pauses, NPO financing.

Compliance and technical risks: independent audits, bug bounties, log storage, infrastructure redundancy.

Macro volatility and payments: licensing crypto-on/off-ramp with transaction monitoring, "threshold" limits, chain reporting.

The ban does not eliminate demand - it redirects it into the shadows and abroad. For Venezuela, that means a loss of budget, jobs and tourism competitiveness, and rising risks for consumers. Managed legalization with a transparent tax on GGR, "white lists" of providers and tough responsible gaming practices allows you to return economic value and build a safe, predictable ecosystem. This is how the ban can be replaced with a controlled model that works in the interests of the state, business, travel industry and citizens.