Historian Chris Calton joins Ryan McMaken to discuss both the upsides and the downsides of Trump’s first 100 days.
In a libertarian world, the streets and highways would no longer be state-owned, but instead managed by private entities such as companies and cooperatives. How might this work?
If we accept the Peronist views of the late pontiff, we obviously cannot support the marketplace. But fortunately, there is a better option available to us.
When politicians claim they are “creating jobs,” they usually mean hiring people for tax-funded government employment. Jobs in private enterprise, however, help to create real wealth and contribute to economic growth and higher living standards.
A storm is brewing in the iGaming world, and at its eye stands a familiar name — Andres Markou, the founder and CEO of MyStake.com, a fast-rising online casino that now finds itself under intense legal and media scrutiny.
What began as an unassuming career move may now evolve into one of the most explosive legal battles in the industry’s history. Allegations have surfaced that Markou, a Cyprus-born entrepreneur, launched MyStake.com shortly after a brief but deeply strategic stint at Stake.com — one of the world’s most dominant and controversial online gambling platforms.
According to internal reports and court filings obtained by this publication, Markou was employed at Stake.com as a Junior Partnership Manager — a role typically considered entry-level. However, insiders claim he approached the position with unusually aggressive intent, soaking up proprietary strategy, forging high-level affiliate relationships, and leveraging the global recognition of the Stake.com brand to build his personal network.
Only months after joining Stake, Markou abruptly exited the company. Soon after, MyStake.com was born — a platform bearing striking structural and visual similarities to Stake’s early model. Industry observers were quick to raise eyebrows, but it wasn’t until a recent court case in Australia that serious allegations surfaced.
The court filings, which pit Stake.com’s legal representatives against Markou and his newly assembled team, suggest that the founder of MyStake illegally accessed and repurposed Stake’s internal affiliate database, using it to rapidly scale his own operation. This alleged move allowed Markou to strike lucrative partnerships and mimic Stake’s explosive early growth — but without laying the groundwork from scratch.
Stake’s co-founder, Edward Craven, is reportedly leading the charge on the legal front, stating in his preliminary testimony that Markou’s actions represent “an intentional and unethical hijacking of proprietary business intelligence.” Craven and Markou, it turns out, share more than just an industry — both are confirmed graduates of Stanford University’s Business Management Master’s program, which has added further intrigue to the saga.
Sources close to the matter suggest the two may have met during their time at Stanford, potentially laying the foundation for both cooperation and future conflict. While the nature of their relationship at the university remains murky, the courtroom battle between them is anything but.
For now, Markou remains silent publicly, and MyStake continues to operate — even thrive — amid the swirling controversy. Traffic and brand visibility for the platform remain strong, and some affiliate insiders even speculate that the scandal has brought MyStake more attention than any marketing campaign ever could.
Yet, as court proceedings continue and more details are expected to be unsealed in the coming weeks, the iGaming world waits with bated breath. If the allegations are upheld, the case could set a precedent regarding intellectual property and partner data within the fiercely competitive online casino landscape.
We will continue to provide updates as the case develops.
By investigative journalist: Alex Rennard
Read more:
Illegal Casino MyStake Owner Scandal
An estimated £2.7 billion is wagered annually with unlicensed online betting sites in the UK, according to a survey commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC).
The report, conducted by Frontier Economics, revealed that this figure accounts for around 2.1% of the £128 billion bet with regulated online operators. While this may seem like a relatively small proportion, the amount of money flowing into the black market highlights a growing and serious concern for both the industry and consumers.
The survey was designed to better understand how UK punters are accessing and interacting with the illegal gambling market. It marks the first major analysis of its kind since the publication of the government’s white paper in May 2023, which called for reforms to modernise and strengthen gambling regulations. The findings paint a worrying picture of an expanding unregulated market that is operating outside the reach of existing laws and protections.
BGC Chief Executive Grainne Hurst described the results as “shocking” and emphasised the “unnerving true scale” of the growing black market. She called on the government and the UK Gambling Commission to implement tougher enforcement measures and warned that they were at risk of “sleepwalking” into an escalating issue. Hurst made it clear that simply increasing powers and resources for regulators would not be enough to combat the problem on its own. A broader, more strategic response is needed to effectively tackle the threat posed by illegal operators.
Among individuals who engage with both licensed and unlicensed platforms, the report found that approximately 12% of their total gambling expenditure is directed toward black market sites—equating to about £2 billion each year. Additionally, those who exclusively use illegal sites contribute a further £695 million annually. The report estimated that this level of illegal activity could result in up to £335 million in lost tax revenue over the course of a five-year parliamentary term.
Whilst this only accounts for roughly 2.1% of the £128 billion staked through licensed operators each year, the implications are far-reaching. The unchecked growth of unlicensed sites undermines regulatory efforts, reduces consumer protections, and leads to significant financial losses for public services that depend on gambling tax revenues. It also exposes users to potentially dangerous environments where fair play, data security, and support systems are virtually non-existent.
Punters who turn to illegal platforms may not fully understand the risks involved. Unlike licensed operators, black market sites operate without any form of regulation or oversight. This means there are no guarantees that games are fair, funds are secure, or personal data is protected. Players who encounter problems—whether related to withheld winnings, hacked accounts, or abusive practices—have no regulatory body to lodge complaints with. There is simply no safety net.
Additionally, these platforms often ignore basic responsible gambling tools such as deposit limits, time-outs, and self-exclusion features. Without these safeguards in place, users are more vulnerable to gambling-related harm. This lack of accountability also makes it easier for minors and individuals with gambling problems to access harmful content unchecked. As the BGC’s research indicates, the appeal of black-market sites is growing, making it more important than ever to raise awareness about the dangers they pose.
To protect consumers and ensure a fair, responsible gambling environment, it’s essential that players choose operators licensed by the UK Gambling Commission. These platforms are required to follow strict standards around security, fairness, and responsible play — including identity verification, deposit limits, and dispute resolution processes.
Brands operating under UKGC oversight, such as BetWright, are part of this regulated ecosystem, helping to uphold industry integrity and safeguard consumers against the risks posed by unlicensed alternatives.
Read more:
BGC survey forecasts £2.7 billion wagered each year on UK’s illegal gambling market
Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar, recently addressed GMU’s Board of Visitors. Prof. Caplan argued that the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) program at the school is like a “McCarthyite witch hunt,” and its office should close. If the DEI program stays, it will transform “GMU from a university where people can freely discuss the most controversial issues into a seminary where people are taught one controversial philosophy as established fact—and dissenters are intimidated into silence,” he said. A video and transcript of Prof. Caplan’s remarks are published below.
It’s been a long time since I’ve received so much as an email from GMU’s DEI office. In fact, the last email I received about GMU DEI was a message from President Gregory Washington announcing that, “Our DEI office is now the Office of Access, Compliance, and Community.” Given the current political climate, why would any reasonable person consider the full abolition of this renamed DEI office, including the firing of all DEI staff, to be an important and valuable goal?
My answer: The current political climate will not last. Political climates never do. And once the political climate for DEI is once again favorable, the office will resume its ultimate mission: transforming GMU from a university where people can freely discuss the most controversial issues into a seminary where people are taught one controversial philosophy as established fact—and dissenters are intimidated into silence. You can call this philosophy “social justice” or “wokeness” as you prefer. Even if you think it is true, it should not be Officially True.
Why do I believe DEI is so dangerous in the long run for freedom of thought? Because, back in 2020, they felt secure enough to explicitly state their plans. Late that year, as you may recall, George Mason emailed us a statement on behalf of the Presidential Task Force on Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence. It’s actually still on the GMU website, but in case they scrub it, I have it archived. I encourage everyone here to read the statement of the Task Force in its entirety, but key passages include:
Vision: George Mason University will become a national exemplar of anti-racism and inclusive excellence.
What if someone at GMU denies that racism is still a notable problem in modern America? What if they maintain that group disparities are caused by differences in ability or preferences? Can there be a place for such dissent in a “national exemplar of anti-racism”?
Mission: Develop and implement effective systems, practices and traditions that eradicate racism and bigotry at Mason.
If someone denies that racism and bigotry is a serious problem at GMU, doesn’t that get in the way of their “eradication”? Indeed, what if someone argues that DEI is the epicenter of on-campus racism and bigotry? And to make a statistical point, the only practical way to “eradicate” anything is to tolerate lots of false positives. To eradicate cancer, you have to cut out a lot of healthy tissue, because seemingly healthy tissue may still be cancerous. Similarly, to eradicate racism and bigotry, you have to get rid of anyone who conceivably, possibly, might be even slightly tainted by racism and bigotry.
The most ominous passage to my mind:
Anti-racism and inclusive excellence will be foundational in every program, process, policy, and procedure at Mason.
I teach labor economics. One of the topics we cover is discrimination. If “anti-racism and inclusive excellence” are really “foundational” in this way, how can I be allowed to favorably present the evidence that discrimination is not an important cause of labor market disparities?
To be fair, the document contains some apparent caveats, like:
Mason will be deliberate in establishing an inclusive environment in which all members of the campus community are welcomed and supported; experience a sense of belonging; and differing perspectives are valued and encouraged.
But there’s no sign that this includes my “differing perspective” that this whole project is a McCarthyite witch hunt.
Is it really such a big deal that some departments started requiring “diversity statements”? To get some perspective on this question, I looked at McCarthy-era Loyalty Oaths. To remain a professor at UC Berkeley in 1950, for example, you had to swear the following:
I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary.
Notice: A devout Leninist revolutionary could honestly swear this oath as long as he doesn’t belong to an organization that advocates the government’s violent overthrow. Furthermore, he could belong to an alternative Communist Party dedicated to establishing Communism by democratic means. In sharp contrast, diversity statements really do demand your outright, wholehearted agreement with DEI.
The original McCarthyism faded away long ago. But consider: What would have happened if McCarthyites had managed to build Offices of Patriotism, Prosperity, and the People throughout higher ed, staffed by scores or even hundreds of Patriotism Officers?
I submit that we would probably still have McCarthyism today! Enthusiastic activists can unleash a temporary witch hunt. But to make a witch hunt permanent, you need an army of full-time paid employees.
And that’s why GMU should decisively end DEI by getting rid of all of its DEI employees. Renaming McCarthyism would not have removed the threat it posed to freedom of thought on campus, and renaming DEI does not remove the threat it poses to freedom of thought on campus.
GMU’s DEI has never done anything to me personally. I’m not angry at anyone. But this has to be done to protect GMU from all the witch hunts we’re going to see in the future if we don’t do the right thing right now. Thank you.
Thinking about entrepreneurship in the tech industry typically conjures images of start-ups and visionary innovators in Silicon Valley.
While that is certainly one form of entrepreneurship, there is another form that might not be initially recognized as entrepreneurship in the same manner. Millions of individuals have leveraged the opportunities provided by online platforms to become entrepreneurs via content creation, via community development, or by creating or promoting a small business. This type of entrepreneurship and the opportunities to engage in it are also impacted by various technology policy decisions.
In my new paper, “Content Creators, Entrepreneurial Users, and the Impact of Tech Policy,” I discuss why we should consider the entrepreneurship behind the content creation and community-building found online. I also discuss how tech policy changes might impact these entrepreneurial users in ways distinct from the average user and the more traditional start-up-style entrepreneurship. The paper explores how the debates around key tech policy topics like antitrust, online speech, and data privacy might impact these communities. It also briefly discusses whether or when such communities might engage in responses to these policy changes, such as when the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and a YouTube consent decree were perceived as impacting YouTube content creators. (The challenge to the TikTok divest or ban law by some of the platform’s content creators would also provide another illustrative example of such a response, but the case was ongoing at the time of the paper’s drafting.)
As the debates around tech policy issues continue in Washington, DC, state legislatures, and around the world, it is important we consider the ways such changes would impact not only “tech” businesses but also a wider array of entrepreneurship and communities enabled by the lower barriers to entry and ample opportunities that online platforms have provided.
SecDef says this shows there is “no daylight” between the US and Ukraine. For those wanting the US out of Ukraine, this moves the US in the wrong direction.
A former toadie to Dick Cheney, sources say Waltz will soon be fired from his job as Trump’s National Security Adviser.
- 1
- 2