Lil Sphinx

What is Lil Sphinx?

Looking back on my 11+ years with CalvinAyre.com, I’ve made life-long friendships, attended countless industry events, interviewed hundreds of leaders, made thousands of contacts, built deep relationships with organizers, even had the honor of delivering a DAF award or two back in the day (who remembers???!!) but best of all, had the pleasure of working with some of the most incredible colleagues along the way, many of which who I classify now as dear friends.

When I joined CalvinAyre.com in August of 2009, there was an enormous gap in the industry for an honest, transparent news site with regular, fresh video content. Over time, we grew from a tiny team of a handful of people to dozens, providing the industry with the juiciest breaking news and cutting-edge video coverage. 

Today we pass on the torch to our event organizing and media production friends who have more recently developed outstanding news coverage and video teams dedicated to the gaming space, hopefully who I’ll be seeing at CoinGeek Conferences in the future.

What is Lil Sphinx?

A customer might buy a team at 55 or 56 cents expecting the price to rise to 58 or 59 cents, he explains. If it falls to 45 cents instead, the trader may refuse to accept the loss and continue holding the position.

“People will lose money faster on exchanges for lots of reasons,” Marantelli says. “It inherently increases spend, volatility, lots of things. And you’re playing against a sharper audience than you’re playing against at the DraftKings sportsbook.”

He compares the effect with sportsbook cash-out features, which gave customers more apparent control over their bets but may also have encouraged greater spending. The crucial difference is that an exchange customer can be facing a specialist whose entire business is identifying inaccurately priced contracts.

About Lil Sphinx

Its findings contained an all-too-familiar combination of ineffective systems, delayed interventions and inadequate source-of-funds controls. One customer placed approximately 4,800 bets in one day and 7,000 the next without being flagged. Another, whose payslips showed monthly earnings of about £2,000, deposited and lost £9,000 in four days.

“What is striking here is the level of activity that apparently failed to trigger effective intervention,” Williams says. “These were obvious indicators requiring further scrutiny, and it is difficult to understand why they did not result in more effective intervention.”

He adds that the recurring weakness is often not an absence of policies but a failure to ensure “technology, algorithms and operational processes actually work in practice”. Some of the QuinnBet issues followed a platform migration, underlining the need to retest controls whenever systems change.