About this app
How to play Raging Bull
Prediction markets aside, the absence of crypto on a federal level may have some drag on the regulated industry, especially in the iGaming and sports betting space.
Younger patrons are increasingly familiar with crypto, but the lack of regulatory adoption in the regulated space can push bettors to offshore or unlicensed platforms, most of which do accept it. At the ICE Barcelona conference in 2025, a panel of international sports betting CEOs lamented the fact that they were barred from adopting crypto, while their black-market competitors were not.
A report released in June by payment provider Paysafe said the percentage of online sports bettors who dabble in crypto is 64%, more than double the US average of 30%. Crypto deposits are only legal in two states, Wyoming and Colorado, but crypto withdrawals are not legal anywhere – 85% of respondents said they would welcome withdrawals as an option, Paysafe said.
About Raging Bull
It’s widely believed that all-or-nothing exchanges are carving out significant niches in states, such as California and Texas, where sports betting is prohibited, but there’s also emerging consensus that the prediction market threat to sportsbooks is easing.
A major advantage for traditional sportsbook operators is their ability to aggressively fund customer acquisition and retention bonuses. As EKG points out, prediction markets have “less ability to be generous with bonuses” because users trade against one another rather than against the house.
That creates a stark contrast during peak football season when traditional sportsbooks spend heavily on promotions. Offers ranging from $350 to $365 from major operators make the $25 to $50 promotional matches typically seen on prediction markets appear modest by comparison.
How to play Raging Bull
“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.
The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.
“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”
