The Glass Slipper

What is The Glass Slipper?

Internally, the board has also been hard at work revising and overhauling several sets of regulations, including rules for gaming salons, AML reporting and now technical standards. Dreitzer represents the fifth NGCB chair to take office since 2019, and the partial term he inherited runs through January 2027.

He told iGB earlier this year he’d “certainly be interested” in a full four-year term after the current one expires. With a background in suppliers and testing labs, Dreitzer is acutely aware of the technical challenges facing the state.

“When I started here, I had multiple conversations with various licensees who operate across multiple jurisdictions, and the consistent commentary I heard was that they would go to Nevada last, if not never at all, because there was concern about the time it would take, the lack of regulatory consistency, the lack of clarity,” he told iGB in January. “So when I came in, in view of the mandate from the governor and the work began by Chair Hendrick, I felt I needed to do something.”

What is The Glass Slipper?

Studio in a Box is designed to provide another option. Yggdrasil handles the technology, infrastructure and support, leaving its partners to concentrate on the brand, creative ideas and commercial direction of their games.

The result, according to Curwen, is “democratising game creation”.

“The priority is to prove the model properly; make sure the games perform and demonstrate that it works commercially.”

About The Glass Slipper

Three months later, Judge Denise Cote ordered Papaya to pay Skillz $719 million in damages for poaching players from its skill gaming platform on the belief that Papaya had more players and therefore facilitated considerably faster peer-to-peer pairing times.

Papaya, headquartered in Israel, quickly secured a temporary stay of proceedings from the Tel Aviv District Court and filed a Chapter 15 petition with Delaware’s U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The Chapter 15 petition seeks to prevent Skillz from initiating collection efforts until its appeals play out.

Papaya concedes that it cannot immediately pay the $719 million judgment, arguing that allowing the company to pay the penalty over multiple years would “preserve … the rights of all parties.”