Meet Edward Likovich of Nymbl Science. Nymbl Science was founded on the idea that balance training is the key to preventing falls for a large portion of our population. We had the opportunity to speak with their founder, Edward Likovich, to learn more about his journey, rapid growth, and balancing it all while raising four daughters. Learn more about Nymbl Science, their team and the cool things they are working on.
What’s your story? How did you get here?
I grew up in the middle of nowhere western Pennsylvania with my grandparents, who were immigrants from Hungary. They really sort of lived the American dream, coming over from Europe and settling in western Pennsylvania, where a lot of people from his country did, and he built a steel pattern business from scratch. Back in the old days they used to produce a bunch of steel in western Pennsylvania and he had a giant workshop where they would build these massive forms. They were stories tall and they would float them down the river on barges. He was this thriving entrepreneur in his 70s and he had a really bad fall and hit his head. He also messed up his knee and never really got back on his feet. Then, for two years he was in a semi-bedridden state and that was difficult for somebody who is completely active. To see him go from not being able to really function, that was really impactful.
And then fast forward. I was in Denver in 2016 in the venture world, but I just wanted to get back to the operating side. I met a guy at a networking event who is now a retired spine surgeon, Dr. JP Farcy. Dr. Farcy grabbed me with his French accent and said that we needed to work together. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to these networking events when a person runs up to you and starts shouting at you – typically not a person you want to talk to. My first thought was get this crazy person away from me. And then I thought, well this guy seems to know what he’s talking about and there seems to be something here. He had a rough prototype with some other folks that he had worked with and they were looking for somebody who could do it full time and turn it into a business. I jumped at the opportunity to help people’s lives and address something that happened to a loved one. Unfortunately that story is all too common.
What problem are you trying to solve?
When we started off, the problem we were trying to solve was the problem of older adults falling. Researchers agree that most falls are preventable. Not many, but most. Society and most of medicine seem to accept you’re old and falling is just a part of aging. While it might be common, it isn’t normal. So how can we address that and how can we empower older adults in the comfort of their own home to make decisions about their own health? So rather than dictating a solution to them, we are inviting them into the conversation and asking, is this something you want to work on? If not, that’s fine. So that’s where we started. What we found was that we actually had a tremendous ability to connect with older adults and build trust with them. And I’d love to say that we have a secret amazing magic sauce, but what it is is treating people with dignity. It’s giving older adults a tool, it’s making something for them. It’s letting them be a decision maker. It’s delivering value to them first. And what we’ve seen is the older adults responding.
The common thread we hear is I’m feeling better. I’m better with my mobility, I’m better with my balance. What else can I do? And we’re like well, we don’t have anything else for you. But what are you interested in? And they’ll rattle off a zillion things. And we say, well, you can go here, this is a great part. And this is a great part and they say no, no, I trust you. I want to do more with you.
And so what we think we have here is the ability to create a platform for older adult health and wellness and our starting points around mobility and so we’ve started off with doing fall prevention.
Next we’re getting into urinary urgency, which may seem totally unrelated but it is something that holds them back from leaving the house. They don’t know if there’s going to be a bathroom nearby. Because what’s more embarrassing than that? And what we hear consistently is older adults say I mentioned it to my doctor, and they say, oh, yeah, you’re just getting older, you should go buy some diapers, that doesn’t feel good. They try to search for information, but they can’t find it because there’s no information written, especially for older adult women. We talked about marginalized populations, older adult women are right up there, because the healthcare system is not designed for them. And they’re often told, hey, yeah, just deal with it’s just part of life.
How CasinosMinimumDeposit Explains Low Deposit Thresholds in New Zealand
New Zealand’s online gambling market has undergone significant structural changes over the past decade, and one of the most visible shifts for everyday players has been the gradual normalization of low minimum deposit thresholds. Where once a NZ$20 or NZ$30 entry point was considered standard, many licensed offshore operators now accept deposits as low as NZ$1, NZ$5, or NZ$10. This shift is not accidental — it reflects a confluence of payment technology evolution, regulatory positioning, and deliberate operator strategy aimed at a market where consumer caution and budget-conscious play are deeply embedded cultural tendencies. Understanding why these thresholds exist, how they are set, and what they actually mean for player protection and operator economics requires looking beyond the surface-level marketing and into the mechanics of how online casinos actually function in the New Zealand context.
The Regulatory Landscape That Shapes Deposit Minimums in New Zealand
New Zealand occupies an unusual position in global gambling regulation. The Gambling Act 2003 governs domestic gambling operations, effectively prohibiting New Zealand-based companies from offering online casino games to local residents. However, the same legislation does not explicitly prohibit New Zealand residents from accessing offshore-licensed platforms. This legal ambiguity has created a market where the vast majority of online casino activity involves operators licensed in jurisdictions such as Malta (under the Malta Gaming Authority), Gibraltar, Curaçao, or the Isle of Man — none of which are subject to direct oversight by New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs.
This regulatory gap has practical consequences for how minimum deposits are set. Because offshore operators are not bound by New Zealand-specific financial thresholds or responsible gambling mandates tied to deposit limits, they have considerable freedom in structuring their entry points. The result is a competitive market where operators differentiate themselves partly through accessibility — and low minimum deposits are one of the most immediate accessibility signals a casino can send to a prospective player. A NZ$5 minimum deposit communicates affordability and low commitment risk far more effectively than any promotional copy could.
It is worth noting that the New Zealand government has been reviewing its gambling legislation framework. Discussions around modernizing the Gambling Act, particularly to address the offshore operator gap, have been ongoing since approximately 2018, with various consultation documents produced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. As of the mid-2020s, no comprehensive reform has been enacted, meaning the offshore market continues to operate in the same legal grey zone. This stasis has paradoxically benefited low-deposit operators, since without formal licensing requirements tied to New Zealand consumer protection standards, there is no regulatory floor on how low a deposit threshold can go.
The Gambling Commission in Great Britain, by contrast, introduced a NZ$5 equivalent minimum deposit rule in 2019 specifically to prevent operators from using micro-deposits as a mechanism to encourage impulsive spending. New Zealand has no equivalent rule, which is why the deposit landscape here looks markedly different from what a UK player would encounter.
How Payment Infrastructure Determines the Practical Floor for Deposits
While regulatory freedom explains why low thresholds are permitted, payment infrastructure explains why they are possible at all. Processing a NZ$5 deposit through a traditional bank card network involves interchange fees, currency conversion costs, and gateway charges that can collectively represent a significant percentage of the transaction value. For many years, this made very low deposits economically unviable — the processing cost would consume a meaningful portion of the deposit itself, making the transaction a net loss for the operator before a single game was played.
The expansion of e-wallet services changed this calculus substantially. Platforms such as Skrill, Neteller, and MuchBetter introduced flat-fee or very low percentage-based transaction models that made small deposits economically feasible. A NZ$5 deposit processed through an e-wallet might incur a fixed fee equivalent to NZ$0.10 or NZ$0.15, preserving the economic viability of the transaction for both the operator and the payment provider. New Zealand players have adopted e-wallets at rates consistent with broader Asia-Pacific trends, where mobile-first financial behavior has accelerated the shift away from traditional bank transfers for small online transactions.
The rise of cryptocurrency as a deposit method has pushed this further. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and particularly stablecoins like USDT allow deposits of almost any size with transaction fees that are determined by network conditions rather than percentage-based merchant fees. Some operators serving New Zealand players now list minimum crypto deposits as low as the equivalent of NZ$1, though practical network fees on some blockchains make very small transactions inefficient. The emergence of layer-2 solutions and alternative blockchains with near-zero fees has addressed even this constraint in some cases.
Research and analysis published by platforms that track operator terms across multiple markets — such as CasinosMinimumDeposit, which systematically documents deposit thresholds, payment method compatibility, and withdrawal conditions across casinos available to New Zealand players — shows that the correlation between available payment methods and minimum deposit levels is highly consistent. Casinos that support a wider range of e-wallets and crypto options almost invariably offer lower minimum deposits than those restricted to bank cards and bank transfers. This is not coincidental; it is a direct reflection of the underlying transaction economics.
Interestingly, the introduction of open banking frameworks in New Zealand — facilitated by the Consumer Data Right legislation that has been progressing through parliament — may further reshape deposit minimums. If real-time bank-to-bank transfers become as frictionless and low-cost as e-wallet transactions, the payment method barrier to low minimums will effectively disappear for bank transfer deposits as well. Industry observers have noted this as a likely driver of further downward pressure on minimum thresholds over the next several years.
Operator Strategy and the Economics of Low-Threshold Acquisition
From an operator’s perspective, setting a low minimum deposit is not simply a gesture of generosity toward budget-conscious players. It is a calculated customer acquisition strategy with specific assumptions about player lifetime value, conversion rates, and the behavioral economics of commitment. Understanding this strategy helps explain why the NZ$5 or NZ$10 minimum has become so prevalent among operators targeting New Zealand players specifically.
The core logic is rooted in what behavioral economists call the foot-in-the-door effect. A player who makes a NZ$5 deposit has crossed a psychological threshold — they have committed real money, created an account, verified their identity (to whatever extent the operator requires), and engaged with the platform’s interface. The friction involved in that initial commitment, even when the financial outlay is minimal, significantly increases the probability that the player will make subsequent, larger deposits. Operators with access to cohort data consistently report that the average second deposit is substantially higher than the first, and that players acquired through low-minimum entry points follow a predictable escalation pattern.
This strategy is particularly effective in markets like New Zealand, where consumer skepticism toward online gambling platforms is relatively high. New Zealand players, on average, are more cautious about committing to an unfamiliar platform than players in markets with longer histories of regulated online gambling. A NZ$5 minimum deposit reduces the perceived risk of trying a new platform to a level that many cautious players find acceptable. Once trust is established through a positive initial experience, the psychological barrier to larger deposits drops considerably.
Operators also use low minimum deposits in conjunction with bonus structures in ways that are more sophisticated than they initially appear. A NZ$10 minimum deposit paired with a 100% match bonus up to NZ$200 seems straightforward — deposit NZ$10, receive NZ$10 in bonus funds. But the wagering requirements attached to such bonuses (typically 30x to 50x the bonus amount) mean that the NZ$10 bonus requires NZ$300 to NZ$500 in wagering before it converts to withdrawable cash. For the operator, the low deposit threshold is essentially a loss-leader that generates significant wagering volume relative to its acquisition cost. The house edge across that wagering volume — typically 2% to 5% on slots, the most common wagering contribution game — generates revenue that more than covers the bonus cost in the majority of cases.
It is also worth examining how operators handle the withdrawal side of low-deposit accounts. Many casinos set minimum withdrawal thresholds that are notably higher than their minimum deposit thresholds — a NZ$5 minimum deposit paired with a NZ$20 or NZ$30 minimum withdrawal is a common configuration. This asymmetry is intentional. It means that a player who deposits NZ$5 and wins NZ$15 cannot immediately withdraw their winnings; they must either deposit more to reach the withdrawal threshold or continue playing, which statistically benefits the operator. This structural feature is rarely highlighted in operator marketing but is consistently documented in the terms and conditions analysis that specialist comparison resources provide.
What Low Minimum Deposits Mean for Responsible Gambling in New Zealand
The responsible gambling implications of low minimum deposit thresholds are genuinely complex, and the debate among researchers and policy advocates does not resolve neatly in either direction. The most common argument against very low minimums is that they reduce friction for problem gamblers, making it easier to make impulsive deposits during periods of poor decision-making. The argument for low minimums is that they allow players to engage with gambling entertainment at a scale proportionate to their actual disposable income, reducing the financial harm associated with chasing losses after a large initial deposit.
The empirical evidence is mixed. A 2021 analysis published in the Journal of Gambling Studies examined deposit threshold effects across multiple regulated European markets and found that minimum deposit requirements above approximately €10 did correlate with slightly lower rates of problem gambling self-identification among low-income players — but that the effect size was modest and confounded by multiple other variables including platform design, bonus structures, and the availability of self-exclusion tools. Extrapolating these findings directly to New Zealand is difficult given the different regulatory environment, but the research suggests that deposit thresholds alone are not a primary driver of gambling harm.
New Zealand’s own Problem Gambling Foundation has consistently emphasized that the design of the gambling experience — the speed of play, the availability of responsible gambling tools, the clarity of terms and conditions — matters more than the entry price point. A NZ$5 minimum deposit on a platform with robust spending limit tools, mandatory cooling-off periods, and clear self-exclusion mechanisms may represent a lower harm risk than a NZ$20 minimum deposit on a platform designed to maximize session length and impulsive behavior.
The challenge in New Zealand is that the offshore operators serving the market are not required to implement any specific responsible gambling measures by New Zealand law. Some operators licensed in Malta or Gibraltar do implement strong player protection tools because their home jurisdiction requires it, and these tools apply to all players regardless of geography. Others, particularly those licensed in Curaçao under the older licensing framework (prior to the Curaçao Gaming Authority’s 2023 reforms), have historically operated with minimal player protection requirements. The practical implication for New Zealand players is that the responsible gambling quality of a low-minimum-deposit casino varies enormously depending on its licensing jurisdiction and its own internal policies — a distinction that requires careful research before committing even a small initial deposit.
The 2023 reforms to the Curaçao licensing framework, which introduced requirements for responsible gambling policies, complaint handling procedures, and player fund segregation, are expected to gradually raise the floor for operators licensed there. Since a substantial proportion of casinos accepting New Zealand players hold Curaçao licenses, these reforms have meaningful implications for the responsible gambling landscape in the New Zealand market over the medium term, even in the absence of domestic regulatory action.
New Zealand’s online casino deposit landscape reflects the intersection of regulatory ambiguity, payment technology evolution, and deliberate operator strategy in ways that are not immediately visible to the average player. Low minimum thresholds are neither inherently harmful nor inherently beneficial — they are tools whose impact depends heavily on the broader context in which they are offered, including the platform’s licensing jurisdiction, its responsible gambling infrastructure, its withdrawal policies, and its bonus terms. Players approaching the market with an understanding of these underlying mechanics are substantially better positioned to make informed decisions about where and how they choose to engage with online casino platforms, and to distinguish between operators whose low entry points reflect genuine accessibility from those using them primarily as acquisition mechanisms.
So we’re developing and hopefully releasing something late Q2. That’ll move us from a single point solution to a platform.
Have you had to pivot since your initial solution?
We didn’t with the product, but we did with the end market. We started out in senior living, because we thought well, that’s where the old people are. So let’s go there. And what we didn’t realize was that the economics and a lot of these buildings can be really challenging to initiate a new program. The wealthiest ones can afford it, but then it becomes pretty difficult as you go downstream from there. So we stepped back and said, well, where’s the money? It’s with insurance companies. It’s the Medicare Advantage plans that are spending money to pay for these claims that happen. So we hopped over to that side and we found a lot of success there in helping to reduce claims and improve the quality of life.
How are you funded?
We’ve raised close to $20 million to date. We just closed above $13 million in January, actually. This time was a slog. I mean, as I’m sure you know, the market kind of dropped out. So we had this real, this kind of weird cat and mouse game where we had the money. I mean, it was like, what’s the valuation of the company and no one would, no one would step forward and do that. So we had the interest and finally we got it done. And it turned out just fine. But it was not easy.
What keeps you up at night?
I think it’s this growth process we’re going through. We grew from 15 people to about 35. It feels like almost overnight and that changes things. It changes my role, it changes my senior leader’s roles. I joke, but it feels like all I do these days is send emails. It is a different type of work. I think there is a maturation that we’re going through and processes we need to get better at and that we aren’t there yet, especially around collaboration across departments. When there are 15 people everybody knows what’s going on. When there’s 35, it doesn’t happen anymore. And we aren’t all geographically together. Communication doesn’t happen naturally anymore so now we have to make time and prioritize that, which always doesn’t feel great as an early stage company. We attract people who are hardworking and driven and want to get stuff done. To tell people that they have to take a step back and collaborate feels like you are going backwards. I think we are good at it, but not excellent at it and we need to find a way to get excellent at it.
Are you a risk taker or did you learn to embrace risk taking?
I’ve always been a strong risk taker. My wife and I had this conversation the other day, and I asked her if I’ve changed and she said no, you’ve always been that way. I think that’s just who I am. I wish I could say that it was learned or deliberate or studied, but we are all different people. We all come a certain way and that’s the fun part of diversity. I joke that I would run off every cliff without looking if I had a parachute.
What is something that fits into the “If I knew then what I know now” category?
Sometimes people just want to hear what they need to do. They want someone to be direct and say, this is what is going on, this is the goal, this is what I need you to do and I need it by this date. And I think that for a lot of my career I would try to lead people to that goal. And that can sometimes feel a little passive aggressive vs just saying, hey this is what I need you to get done. Some people are looking for that direction and goal to kick butt and that is ok and that’s a good thing to do.
What are some of your passions and interests outside of work?
Well, I’ve got a bunch of kids. I have four daughters aged eight to one. That takes up a lot of time and is a lot of fun. I enjoy a lot of typical Colorado things. I enjoy hunting. I hunt elk every fall which is a lot of fun. I ski a bit. I’m getting more into it. I like music a lot, I’ve got a ton of music – across genres and I really enjoy it. I like live performances in general. I like food too but who doesn’t?
What is a misconception about being a founder?
There’s a lot of them. I think one is the glamorous aspect of it, right? Like being a startup CEO is glamorous. I took a day off on Wednesday, my wife and I and two friends went skiing and of course there was a crisis. And some people could say, just take the day off, just turn off, take your day. The issue was we had a state tax thing that we had to pay by a certain point. I was the only one who could tell people when they’re asked, what do we need to do? Basically they just needed someone to approve it. That’s me. Not very glamorous.
Then there is this weird fallacy that people believe they come up with an idea, create a website, and people are gonna find it and buy it. And that is not the case. The amount of time and effort and skill that goes into marketing and branding – it is a true art and I think it really gets discounted. People really believe they can have a cool idea and people will just find it – there is a lot of hard work that goes into this.
What advice would you give someone starting their own business?
I have really good advice for people who aspire to be founders or are interested in starting something but don’t quite know what they’d want to do. I got advice from a close friend of mine, Ben, who started a really interesting company. His advice was just pick something you are interested in and just go as deep as you can in it. Stop thinking about the business you are going to create, just learn, learn everything and if you immerse yourself there you are naturally going to see what problems are there. In his case, he was really interested in mental health and happiness. He spent time with the monks in Tibet and just kind of went out there and lived with them for a while. And things came together.
Being in healthcare there’s a zillion problems, it can be hard to pick one. And so it’s sort of what do you want to do? Go shadow a physician for a while, volunteer in the emergency department, volunteer at a senior living facility. Do that for a month and you’ll naturally see things that you can impact.
