We can’t risk losing the best new art patronage model because it was just one unlucky roulette wheel turn falsely packaged as innovation. Amusnet is one of the biggest companies on the iGaming market. They are excited to be sponsoring the award for “Most Traded NFT Collection” at the Ortak x B.F.T.H. Arena Awards 2025. On the surface, that sounds like a pretty progressive move, right? A casino company getting into the digital art space! This is one case where, if you scratch the surface, a more nuanced — and potentially alarming — reality comes into view.

Benevolence or Brand Building Exercise?

Amusnet, one of the world’s 300+ slots suppliers and live casino providers, suddenly cares about NFTs. This sponsorship comes across more as a marketing strategy than a sincere artistic endeavor. They're not just sponsoring any NFT award; they're sponsoring the "Most Traded" collection. Instead, the focus of the world around them centers on volume and speculation. Combined, these elements create a gambling-like volatility that characterizes the NFT space.

Think about it. They’re not just appealing to a younger, more digitally native audience. This tribe already understands the thrill of risk and reward. They do this by associating their brand with NFTs. This development indicates a tight connection between iGaming and digital art speculation. Is this responsible? Is this ethical? Or an equally cynical ploy to bait a new generation of suckers with the lure of instant fortunes? Yet it appears to overlook the dire, real-world ramifications attached to it.

Southeast Asian Artists: Pawns or Partners?

It’s here where my concern grows more, and particularly when thinking about the global scale of the NFT space and event. I spoke with Nandar Lwin, a community activist deeply involved with emerging Southeast Asian artists. Her take was blunt: "Are these sponsorships really helping our artists, or are they just being used to greenwash a casino's image?"

The question is valid. Southeast Asia is a true cradle of creativity, where hundreds of thousands of gifted creators are finding and developing innovative uses for NFTs. Many do not have the resources, the knowledge, and the connections to navigate the complex world of Web3. Otherwise, they are in very real danger of being victimized. Corporations with deep pockets and a vested interest in their success are standing at the ready to swoop in.

Is Amusnet truly seeking out and sponsoring artists who are women, people of color, LGBTQA and other minority communities? Or better yet, are they equipping them with education and resources to better understand the legal pitfalls and financial opportunities that NFTs can entail? Or are they just cherry-picking a few success stories to make themselves look better? At the same time, the overwhelming majority are just fighting to stay alive. These award criteria, most trading volume, best community, best visuals, best utility, may seem like a great idea on their surface. But who defines "unique utility"? And finally, how do we make sure that artists from marginalized communities really have an equal opportunity to compete against the major incumbents?

Here's a harsh truth: The power dynamic is inherently skewed. Having a casino company sponsor an NFT award leaves artists in an awkward position. They become forever bound to an industry deeply rooted in risk and addiction. This isn't a level playing field. It's a loaded game.

Innovation or Irresponsibility?

Amusnet and BetConstruct tout their "shared vision for the future of iGaming, driven by innovation." What innovation exactly are we referring to here? Or are they punting, failing to innovate in how they offer safer, more responsible gaming experiences? Or just developing new techniques to lure new customers in while willfully ignoring the negative impact it may cause.

Ace has a point, but the line between innovation and stupidity is frequently crossed. In the emerging world of iGaming and NFTs, it’s more important than ever to focus on asking the hard questions. Are we designing a future where burgeoning needs of human, social, and planetary welfare takes a back seat to the quick buck? In other words, are we choosing corporate profit over what’s best for artists and communities?

This isn’t a suggestion that Amusnet’s sponsorship is itself evil. It’s a nuanced, multifaceted issue that merits close, careful consideration and scrutiny. We need to demand transparency and accountability. Let’s ensure that Southeast Asian artists, not the usual suspects, lead the way to this systemic change. We further have to raise voices from every oppressed community. We need to ask ourselves: is this really a win for artists, or just another calculated gamble by a casino company looking to expand its reach?

Let’s not succumb to the shiny object trap of innovation. Beyond the collective innovation of such a partnership, we need to ask the hard questions about the ethics behind it. The future of culture and the future of our cities might just rely on it.