Stake: Massimo Menegalli highlights a paradox
•
3 Sep 2026 •
Reading time: 3 minutes
The success of offshore gambling platforms raises a fundamental question: do the rules imposed on regulated operators still effectively protect players when their competitors are not subject to these same constraints? Massimo Menegalli, of Golden Palace Casino & Sports, cites Stake as a symbol of this imbalance and calls for a review of the current approach.
Stake: a symbol of a regulatory paradox
For Massimo Menegalli, the contrast is striking. The crypto-casino Stake, which has partnered with Eden Hazard as its ambassador, is reportedly valued at around 2.5 billion Canadian dollars.
This valuation would exceed that of any regulated operator in Canada, even though the platform holds no provincial licence in the country. He also highlights the lack of a Belgian licence.
Offshore platforms attract the lion’s share of wagers
Menegalli bases his argument on an analysis by CasinoCanada covering 301 active gambling brands in Canada. According to the figures he cites, one in three Canadian gamblers currently uses offshore platforms.
These players would remain in the minority, but would account for a particularly large share of the money wagered. Overseas platforms would account for 712 million Canadian dollars in wagers, compared with 484 million for regulated operators.
Problem gamblers would account for just 2.1 per cent of players, but would be responsible for 46 per cent of the sums wagered on offshore platforms. This concentration raises questions about the effectiveness of a protection policy that places heavy restrictions on regulated companies whilst failing to impose the same safeguards on platforms operating outside the national legal framework.
Are prevention messages sufficient?
Prevention is another aspect of his critique. He cites data from Toronto Metropolitan University showing that 60 per cent of young gamblers surveyed believe that prevention messages have little or no influence on their gambling habits.
For Menegalli, a simple warning encouraging responsible gambling cannot compete with platforms that are constantly accessible, highly visible on screens and associated with international celebrities.
Belgium and Canada: the same imbalance, according to Menegalli
The Canadian and Belgian legal frameworks differ. Massimo Menegalli nevertheless considers that the underlying problem is similar: the authorities are tightening the restrictions on operators over whom they have effective control, whilst offshore platforms continue to reach players without being subject to the same obligations.
He cites Stake as an example to illustrate the situation in Belgium. The protective measures provided for under Belgian law — notably EPIS, deposit limits, regulatory oversight and the means of redress in the event of a dispute — do not apply to the platform.
Regulated companies bear the costs and constraints associated with player protection, whilst their offshore competitors enjoy far greater freedom.
Menegalli directly contrasts this situation with the obligations undertaken by Golden Palace.
‘We invest in player protection. We verify their identities. We enforce the rules. And we are practically forbidden from even saying that we exist. One day, we will have to explain to the players we claim to protect why we have spent ten years muzzling the only operators over whom we actually had any control.’