Platform
Game Analytics & Monitoring
Complete visibility of the licensed sector — who is licensed, what they operate, what those systems actually did, and whether the record they report matches the record their suppliers hold.
Methodology
Three pillars
Pillar one
Administrative and legal
Centralised registration of operators and venues, licence issue and variation, and product certification — held in one authoritative record rather than distributed across departmental spreadsheets. Every subsequent control resolves against this register.
Pillar two
Technical data collection
Real-time device-level monitoring of land-based gaming machines, and transaction-level API integration with online operators and the aggregators that supply their content. Data arrives as events, not as periodic operator returns.
Pillar three
Data analysis
Automated integrity rules applied continuously, anomaly detection across venues, devices and accounts, and predictive risk analytics that direct inspection effort towards the operators most likely to warrant it.
Assurance
Data sameness
Operator-reported transactions are compared automatically against the aggregator's own record of the same events.
Discrepancies in count, value, timing or outcome are raised as exceptions rather than discovered during a later audit.
Where records agree, the regulator has independent confirmation of turnover and payout; where they do not, it has a specific, evidenced question to put to the licensee.
Reference programme
The Georgian experience
2020
≈ US$72m
2025 forecast
≈ US$720m
State budget income from the sector rose from approximately US$72 million in 2020 to a forecast US$720 million in 2025.
That result should be attributed carefully. It is the outcome of regulatory reform, taxation change and complete transaction visibility acting together — not of the monitoring system alone. We do not present it as a guaranteed outcome of deploying a monitoring platform, and any jurisdiction should expect its own result to depend on its own legal and fiscal decisions.
What the monitoring system contributes is the visibility on which the other two depend: reform and taxation can only be enforced against turnover that the state can actually see.