When Is Innovation Worth the Investment?

Alex Iaroshenko - CEO B1 (Be One, formerly Betbazar)

‍

Innovation Is Easy. Value Is Hard

Innovation is one of the easiest things to approve emotionally and one of the hardest to justify commercially.

In iGaming, we are surrounded by new technologies, new formats and new ways to engage players. AI has only accelerated that cycle. But for me, the fact that something is technically possible has never been a sufficient reason to build it.

The more important question is: does this innovation solve a problem that will still exist after the excitement around the technology disappears?

That distinction matters. Because there is a significant difference between building something new and building something valuable.

‍

Start with the problem, not the technology

One of the biggest mistakes companies make is starting with a technology and then looking for a reason to use it.

AI is a good example. The conversation often begins with: What can we build with AI?

I think it should begin somewhere else: What problem are we trying to solve, and is AI genuinely a better way to solve it?

In the sportsbook, one structural problem is obvious. Traditional sports are tied to calendars. Matches start and finish. Seasons end. Different time zones create peaks and gaps. Yet digital users do not organise their activity around those schedules.

That creates an interesting product question: can technology create additional sports-style content that operates independently of the real-world calendar without simply reproducing the traditional virtual-sports model?

AI-driven sports are one response to that problem. Instead of using predetermined scripts or RNG-based mechanics, models can generate the sporting action itself, while automated systems handle elements such as tournaments, data, odds and trading. The result can be an always-on content environment rather than content dependent on a fixed sporting calendar.

‍

Demand matters more than novelty

When I look at a potential investment, one of my first questions is very simple:

If we removed the word “innovative” from the presentation, would customers still want it?

If the answer is no, that is a warning sign.

Products with long lifecycles usually solve recurring problems. Operators will continue to need reliable infrastructure. They will continue looking for ways to improve efficiency, diversify content, increase availability and keep users engaged.

The technology used to achieve those things will change. The underlying needs are much more durable.

This is why I am more interested in innovation that changes the economics or capabilities of a product than innovation that simply changes its appearance.

An AI-generated sports competition, for example, becomes strategically interesting when it can create content continuously, automate processes that traditionally require more manual intervention and remove some of the limitations created by real-world schedules. Those are operational characteristics, not an AI marketing story.

That is where novelty starts becoming utility.

‍

The second question is whether it can scale

A successful prototype proves that something can work.

It does not prove that you have a business.

This distinction becomes particularly important with technically complex products. A concept may look impressive in a controlled environment and become economically unattractive once you need to operate it continuously, integrate it with customers, support it, maintain reliability and expand it into multiple markets.

So before committing significant resources, I want to understand what happens after the first customer.

Does customer number 20 make the business stronger or simply 20 times more complicated?

Can operations be automated?

Can the infrastructure handle growth?

Can the product expand without the cost base growing at the same speed?

Can it become a category rather than remain an experiment?

The most interesting innovations are not necessarily those that create one successful product. They are the ones that create a foundation from which multiple products can emerge.

‍

Some risks are worth taking. Others aren't

Innovation without risk does not exist.

I am comfortable with uncertainty around how quickly a new category will develop. I am comfortable testing something the market has not fully validated yet. And I am comfortable being early when there is a strong underlying problem and a credible path to solving it.

I am much less comfortable with structural risks: economics that only work at an unrealistic scale, technology that cannot operate reliably, a product that depends entirely on one market or distribution channel or a business case built primarily around hype.

Being early is a risk. Building something that has no reason to exist once the hype disappears is a different kind of risk.

‍

Innovation has to survive becoming ordinary

Perhaps this is the test I find most useful.

Imagine that the technology you are excited about today becomes completely normal three years from now.

AI will almost certainly move in that direction. The term itself will become less interesting as more products incorporate it. Eventually, saying that something uses AI may become about as commercially meaningful as saying that a product uses cloud infrastructure.

What remains then?

If the answer is better economics, stronger engagement, greater availability, lower operational complexity or a fundamentally better experience, there may be a durable business underneath the technology.

If the answer is simply “we use AI”, there probably isn't.

The iGaming industry does not have a shortage of ideas. It has a shortage of ideas that can survive the transition from exciting innovation to everyday infrastructure.

For me, that is ultimately where investment decisions become clearer.

Don't ask whether technology is the future. Ask whether the problem it solves will still matter when that future arrives.

‍

Alex Iaroshenko
CEO, B1 (Be One)

Alex Iaroshenko is CEO of B1 (Be One, formerly Betbazar), an iGaming technology company. He focuses on product strategy, technology investment and building scalable solutions for the sportsbook industry.

Read the full article on the industry media