01
Entity, licence and product
Legal entity, licensing jurisdiction, active product URL, target brands and the regulated status of every market in scope.
iGaming payment infrastructure
PSP matching for licensed iGaming businesses.
A provider that accepts gaming traffic is not automatically the right operating partner. OfferPSP qualifies the entity, licences, markets, payment flows and risk profile before arranging a relevant introduction.
Send a private payment brief
What we evaluate
What an iGaming PSP needs to evaluate
A useful introduction starts with an underwriting-ready operating profile, not a request for a generic provider list.
02
Deposit and payout flows
Required currencies, deposit methods, withdrawal logic, payout timing, expected ratios and whether cards, bank rails or local methods are needed.
03
Traffic and risk profile
Acquisition channels, target player GEOs, expected chargebacks, fraud controls, responsible-gaming controls and source-of-funds procedures.
04
Volume and integration
Realistic monthly processing volume, average ticket, peak load, current stack, integration preference and launch timetable.
Decision checkpoints
Decision gates before an iGaming PSP introduction
A provider name is useful only after the operating case is specific enough for a real underwriting conversation.
D1
Entity and licence line up
The contracting entity, gaming licence, player-facing brands and target markets must describe one coherent operating model.
D2
Deposits and withdrawals are mapped separately
Currencies, methods, limits, payout timing and withdrawal controls are recorded as distinct flows rather than treated as one generic payment route.
D3
Traffic and controls can be explained
Acquisition sources, KYC, responsible-gaming controls, fraud prevention and expected disputes need named operational owners and supporting evidence.
D4
Commercial terms remain workable
Reserves, settlement timing, limits, integration effort and backup coverage are checked against the merchant’s real cash-flow and launch plan.
Practical detail
From licence evidence to an assessable gaming route
A gaming payment brief should let a provider understand the regulated product, the movement of player funds and the operational controls without reconstructing the business from scattered documents. These checkpoints make the difference between a broad lead and a case that can enter provider review.
| Review area | Evidence to prepare | Why it changes the route |
|---|---|---|
| Regulated perimeter | Contracting entity, current licence evidence, player-facing domains, permitted products and target jurisdictions. | A licence in one jurisdiction does not automatically permit acquisition or player activity in every requested market. |
| Player money flow | Deposit methods, withdrawal rules, closed-loop controls, payout timing, currencies and the parties that hold or move funds. | A provider may support deposits but not the requested payout flow, or may require separate controls and limits. |
| Acquisition and risk | Traffic sources, affiliate controls, KYC, responsible-gaming procedures, fraud monitoring, chargebacks and processing history. | Provider appetite depends on how players are acquired and controlled, not only on the vertical label. |
| Operational readiness | Integration owner, target launch date, monthly volume, average ticket, peak events, reconciliation and escalation contacts. | A plausible route must be technically and operationally usable after compliance review. |
Brief example
Example of an iGaming brief that can be reviewed
A useful example might describe a Curaçao-licensed operator, the exact licensed entity and domains, Brazilian and Mexican player acquisition, card deposits plus Pix or SPEI requirements, player withdrawals, expected monthly volume and the existing risk stack. It should also state what remains unconfirmed. OfferPSP can then compare the facts with available route information; provider identity is disclosed only after the provider accepts the merchant for review and a controlled introduction is coordinated.
B1
Corporate pack
Certificate of incorporation, ownership chart, directors, operating address and the bank account intended for settlement.
B2
Regulatory pack
Licence record, authorised brands and domains, target-market analysis and the policies governing KYC, AML and responsible gaming.
B3
Processing pack
Recent statements where available, volume and ticket assumptions, dispute ratios, deposit-to-withdrawal behaviour and requested limits.
B4
Technical pack
Checkout and cashier flow, integration model, webhooks, token requirements, payout process, reconciliation files and launch dependencies.
Review process
Common gaming brief failures and a realistic review sequence
The ranges below are OfferPSP planning estimates, not a provider SLA. A complete brief may be screened for obvious fit in 1–2 business days; an interested provider may need roughly 3–10 business days for an initial review. Full due diligence, contracting and technical launch often require 3–8 weeks, and regulated multi-country cases can take longer. The clock pauses when evidence or provider answers are missing.
Common brief mistakes
- Licence, entity and player-facing domain do not match.
- Deposits are described but withdrawal controls and payout ownership are absent.
- Affiliate traffic, disputes or earlier provider decisions are omitted.
What speeds up the provider decision
- One indexed data room with current corporate, licence and policy documents.
- Separate country rows for players, methods, currencies, deposits and withdrawals.
- A named owner who answers underwriting questions and records every open point.
Matching inputs
Prepare the matching brief
Specific, current information improves the quality of every provider conversation.
Company and product URLs
Licensing evidence and jurisdictions
Player and entity GEOs
Deposits, payouts and currencies
Expected volume and ticket size
Current PSP constraints and launch date
Questions
What businesses usually ask
What is an iGaming PSP?
An iGaming PSP is a payment service provider willing and able to assess gaming merchants for specific entities, licences, player markets and payment flows. The label alone does not prove that a provider can onboard every operator or GEO.
Is an iGaming payment gateway the same as a PSP?
An iGaming payment gateway and a PSP are not always the same service. A gateway may supply the technical connection while a PSP or acquirer provides regulated payment services, underwriting and settlement. The contracting and funds-flow roles should be confirmed before integration.
Can OfferPSP guarantee that an iGaming merchant will be accepted?
OfferPSP cannot guarantee that an iGaming merchant will be accepted. We reduce avoidable mismatches, but each provider independently reviews the merchant, licence, ownership, traffic, controls and operating model.
Do you work with unlicensed operators?
OfferPSP can review an unlicensed operator only when its operating model is lawful in every target jurisdiction. Missing or unclear licensing information is a material matching constraint and may leave no credible provider route.
Can one PSP cover every player GEO?
One PSP rarely covers every player GEO for a multi-market iGaming business. The business may need a primary route, local alternatives and a resilient backup structure depending on entity, method and provider coverage.
Do you reveal your provider network publicly?
OfferPSP does not currently publish its provider network. Indicative route information can be shared after qualification, but provider identity is disclosed only after the provider accepts the merchant for review and OfferPSP coordinates a controlled introduction.
Related payment briefs
Continue the research
Private qualification
Describe the route that must work.
Share the company, target GEOs, vertical, methods, volume and current constraint. We will assess the next useful step without publishing your provider search.