They're not a bank and don't want to be in the business of being one.
Perhaps, but it is older style banking principles that made for Stars being able to handle things well, while FT, and presumably Cereus have not/can not.
The older style banking principles I refer to are the ones that tell banks they must keep a very healthy percentage of their funds liquid, being able to contend with a 'run on the bank' situation. Enacted after the Depression, those principles helped America specifically, but the rest of the world (post WWII) rebuild a decimated economy. As those principles (and resulting regulations) were relaxed to near pre Depression levels, the banks got greedy and caused the collapse we are still suffering from, mostly globally.
If capital is no problem, then you're right and FT won't want to be a bank. However, since there is a lot of spec about whether or not outside investors can make a difference, they (those outside investors) might want to spread the risk. Think along the lines of a first time deposit bonus, and the idea is not so far fetched.
_________________________
And in a sense,
poker sites are a bank, an investment bank. We, the players are investing, either in an entertainment concern, or in a
bankroll increasing capacity. We become our own brokers in this investment bank, the company (site) makes its cut from the fees (rake). We are responsible for making sane investments (bets), or calculated risks in order to either entertain ourselves, or make a killing in the market. So IMHO, the sites need to, nay, have to be aware of the banking aspects of online poker.
Again, IMHO, online differs from B&M
casinos because the vaster majority of B&M customers are looking to the entertainment side of the game. Those same people, play the lotto's when they get big, but seldom before they get big.
