Bitcoin Forum

As users of gambling sites, we have to be careful and do our own research before committing our funds to a site. But no matter how much you dig around there is always a chance of being scammed or at least not being treated right by a service. I just read this article below on the need to have some short of protection or even a self regulation. Would you say that you would play more confidently if you knew that you can potentially have a claim if you think something is not right with the system or the decisions? How would that protection look like for you?

https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/uk/2021/07/23/richard-hayler-ibas-the-ombudsman-from-abstract-concept-to-a-workable-reality/ (https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/uk/2021/07/23/richard-hayler-ibas-the-ombudsman-from-abstract-concept-to-a-workable-reality/)

Wow! does it mean the government will have to create an agency to focus on gambling only?

I think the current system is safe, as long as the casino or the business is regulated, the government can monitor them to comply with the rules and if they commit crime by scamming gamblers, they should face jail time as the authorities will be after them.

I think this gambling ombudsman will focus on casinos and betting shops regulated by the UK Gambling Commission. As we know, most of the crypto casinos are licensed in Curacao and the majority of them restrict citizens from the United Kingdom. You need a UK gambling license and perform strict KYC/AML checks to operate on British soil. I don't see this being a major concern for crypto gamblers since many platforms aren't properly regulated anyways.   

The idea of a gambling ombudsman is good for a gambler to claim if the casino is doing something wrong and break their own rules. Maybe the ombudsman can be funded by the tax from the other business or even from the gambling industry itself. But many things need to be prepared because most gamblers make their own mistakes by using more money to gamble so that the gambler can blame the casino because of this behavior.

The claim can work if the casino scams the gambler, but if the gambler cheats on the casino, they can not claim it the casino mistake.

This would make the other party happy, while the other party sad.

What I mean is, if the gambling industry will be this regulated, some gamblers will not gamble anymore, submitting their KYC information is already a loss of privacy, so they'll rather look for a casino with fewer requirements, however, it will also be risky and I think they'll understand it so they take the risk.

If there's a Gambling ombudsman, it will give added protection to gamblers who are not hiding anything, usually, these are gamblers that risk big money and they really need protection that they'll not be scam by a casino.

Of course I would play more if I know that I could contest a claim when I am done wrong but that contesting should be fair for both sides. Plus, with a gambling ombudsman you can be sure that as a customer, you can't be screwed over by the business.

That's a benefit that you won't see anywhere else so I like to grab one lol.

Not just confident but I feel more relax and comfortable when doing gambling as if there's something wrong with the service, users are protected by the law. It will lessen the chance of having unprofessional gambling operators while at the same time, only honest, kind, and good casinos will remain operating.

I expect more members to say an ombudsan is not necessary in crypto gambling market since majority of the community doesn't really care about the license. They feel confident to play as long as the platform has built a good reputation and doesn't have many restrictions just like what Ziskinberg said.

I should be a good news for gamblers residing in UK because this would only have effects in casinos and gambling sites present in the United kingdom and not for the entire gambling sites scattered across the world. But it's a nice kick off I wish other countries follows suit. Gamblers needs to be protected from some self centered and unregulated gambling and casinos sites.

It’s always good to be protected, and with the assurance from the government at least the gambler will have a confidence. Though its hard to know the irregularities online especially if you are not into numbers, mostly you’ll see those irregularities on the casinos when you experienced it on hand. Gamblers should always fee protected so they can enjoy and continue playing, that’s the trust should every casinos work on.

Asking and digging for information about gambling sites needs to be done. Although sometimes we will really bother asking who and which sites guarantee that your money is completely safe and under control.
Gamblers may be on strike for a while. However, they can't control the emotions that have become a routine gambling habit and are stopped by the proliferation of various self-regulations against all the clients at the Casino who complain about the frequent occurrence of fraud.

As long as it is structured properly and the gambling institutions fear the repercussions from having any complaints escalated to the ombudsman then it can definitely be a useful service. If you look at the financial services ombudsman, if I recall correctly there is an upfront fee of £500 any time a complaint gets filed with them - so it is definitely in the interests of any financial institution to aim to resolve any complaints and keep the customer happy, because that is the minimum price it'll cost them before a government backed official gets involved and adjudicates. It actually works quite well in the majority of circumstances, however gambling institutions have a habit of playing the offshore game which can assist them at avoiding regulation and put on-shore casino companies at a bit of a disadvantage in such circumstances.

For physical casinos then this would be applicable or had been already been imposed or integrated since these businesses are regulated and licensed which means you do really have the chance for some compensation or refund of funds in case if there are some scams that do happen but its not an assurance though but talking about crypto?  Its really hard for it to be applied since of that anonymity where
every owner could really ran away users funds without even being traced and thats why some people do really mind off about licenses but its not a guaranteed thing
but at least you could really presume that there might be some chances.

When it comes to crypto casinos in particular, it is always better to play on reputable casinos known to this forum.
But would be hard for newbies that don't know about this forum, because usually a lot of outsiders are being victimized because they don't know who to trust when it comes to online casinos.
It is easy if it is physical casino, because more than likely their business is legal and it is under the jurisdiction of the government.
But if you are a user of this forum, you can always get support even from the known users here when you get scammed from one of the sites who has their thread here.
So for me, if you will stick to the casinos found here, and are known reputable sites, I believe you are somehow already protected from potential scamming.

Well, I don’t know what about others, but I’d feel safer knowing that there’s an official representative that deals with gambling issues.

Provably fair works, there’s no doubt in that, but the casinos themselves can be fishy, playing around with TOS and freezing accounts, we all know that happens, and license doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t guarantee safety and upholding the rights when needed. Ombudsman, on the other hand, could be a different story.

However, gamblers will stand before a certain dilemma. Seeing that ombudsman, obviously, will only process claims from official organizations, those interested in such form of help would have to switch from illegal to legal casinos, and the latter can be not as entertaining and attractive, plus most customers are used to certain casinos already. Plus, afaik legal casinos often impose taxes on winnings.

So what will most people choose then: comfort and zero taxes or safety?

Well it's a nice intro to regulating casinos, as well as listening to customers so that casinos are more well regulated, but at the same time, the system CAN be abused by opposing casinos or heck, even troll ones at that, so as long as they're able to manage that, then it's perfectly possible for them to implement it. Casinos would have a harder time in trying to take advantage of their customers, and scammer ones would easily be filtered out since they'd have stricter checks imo when they implement this. It's a plus on our side, not really a minus on the casino side if they do their job properly.

It will need to prepare many things before that ombudsman can start.
Listening to the customer's problem will be the most thing that will not be easy as they need to write on the note what is happening to them and start investigating the casino.
Maybe we can wait for more to see if that ombudsman can work with the right to attract attention from the others to have an ombudsman too.
I think that can help both sides, the gambler and the casino, so with the ombudsman organization available in that country, it can control the number of addicted people to gambling.

You'll only feel the protection if you already experience some problem on a site that you are using and so far, all my problems are being solve by their support.

Those regulators are worth it, that's why most of the casinos are working with then and complying with the rules and regulations because if they didn't follow such regulations, they might face a closure of their business. Customers should always feel that protection, and a site should do everything to provide that good services for them to grow as well.

Gambling ombudsman sounds good if they will play it fair and square, because there is a chance that they would always go for the gambling site or casinos instead of protecting the players because of money and power, if that's the case, then what's the point of having a Gambling ombudsman.
Therefore I don't think it's needed, because a good gambling sites and casinos will surely give you a good service for you to stick on their platform.

You can protect yourself by adjusting your risk levels properly. If you are sending huge amounts to an online casino, even thought if the casino has good reputation, you are taking big risk by doing so. Why take unnecessary risks while you can avoid this whole thing altogether in the first place?

More regulation would only mean more expenses for the casino and the player will pay for those expenses one way or another.

That's what every gambler wish and wants, to play in a safe environment let's admit it some gambling sites are not playing it right and let the players suffer if they win huge money and unknowingly break rules if they have something like this in place, they can play with a peaceful mind and won't mind playing longer hours and adding more money to their bankroll, but of course, this so-called gambling ombudsman should play it fair, this is a tax-paying company and they are employing people and generating jobs.
There should be implementing rules that will satisfy both parties.

We have learn that most gambling sites are not really that completely truthful , Yeah they are saving their names but in the end there will always a issue and claims from players that is not satisfied with their service.
But the question is , Will this Ombudsman will really serve the gamblers that affected or will sooner become corrupt and will only take bags the bribed from gambling site that is in question?
if we assure the Public/gamblers about their credibility then Yeah we will be very happy but if this will only act as Mediator and in the end will tursns against the victim, then lets forget the idea at all.

That's the problem in most countries. Even if they have government officials that supposedly protect the players, sometimes they end up protecting the casino itself because of bribery. Corruption is not new in this industry. There's always individual that will be attracted by bribed money. So what you can do as a player, is just to look after yourself. Make sure you are not violating their terms, so you will prevent any trouble.

I think the greatest security a user can have is playing only on sites they know.

Of course, when it comes to gambling involving crypto-currencies there is still a very large niche to be filled for those looking for bets on lesser-known sports, such as the second division of football in a country outside Europe... it's not an easy thing to find, but in these cases, the player needs to bet smaller amounts aiming for much more entertainment than profit.

More than knowing, they also have to have common sense because there's tell tale signs when the site is going the scam route. I believe that security starts to an individual level before anything else because if you aren't secure at an individual level, then malicious entities can just attack them individually to weaken the security as a whole.

That's another assurance for gamblers residing in the UK. At least they would have such protection. We can't deny the fact that scammers will always be everywhere and we have to protect ourselves against it but knowing that the government is providing that kind of security is already an advantage. I hope that gambling protection would be regulated in our country as well.

Any support is going to be helpful because with consumer protection, more people will be playing since they know that it's safe to do so. I think every country already has a gambling protection, I think it's covered by consumer rights or something.

sometimes nothing is expected. Governments often do not do when it comes to gambling sites. They legalize what gives profit. While the rest just play on illegal sites without any government monitoring. So the biggest is where they deliberately take the opportunity and go outside can be followed up by any party.

This is good, in fact all must have a protection agency for their customers. Rules like exchange it would be good. All online gambling sites must be supervised in an institution and that will calm the users. Even though it is a bit of a lot of work for online gambling sites but it will give great trust to customers. So I support it is very necessary.

I would be more relaxed about playing if I had somewhere to complain, which I see in most  scam cases against casinos is precisely the fact that there is nowhere to complain, people are simply stolen and not being returned, A few days ago I saw someone who was robbed by a casino and to this day he has not been repaid and he is constantly begging for his money back


in every country in the world there are some government agencies responsible for gaming, they would would give license casinos and create methods for people to complain.

Arent most of fiat gambling sites regulated?For sure they are really that protected once scam or any frauds that do happen.Its not literally focusing on users protection but its already been integrated or included.
This is where licensing is relevant but we know that this isnt something that could really be applied on cryptocurrency this is why when you are dealing with crypto then always take consideration about on the risk
involved and never ever tend to put up big money on this one.

Of course this is very secure, and I believed it will be a good example for all gambling institution to follow. Commiting our funds to the site should be scrutinized first before entrusting all of them, but I do suggest to use just optimize funds to prevent regrets in the end. We don't know how all things will be going, much better to be safe at your own method even though there's ombudsman who protected us.

Yes, of course, an assurance of protection should somehow give me more confidence to play. However, do we need to add a certain office for that? To those governments where gambling regulatory bodies are not yet existent, they need to create one. But to those that have already government agencies and bureaus tasked to regulate and monitor gambling operations, I guess that is enough.

If that seems insufficient, I think the problem is probably in its weak implementation of gambling policies, or the lack thereof. But most probably, there must already be a mechanism intended to protect consumers of gambling services and products.

Of course, with such protection, gamblers will be calmer and more comfortable to deposit a lot of money. Because after all, whether there is protection or not, big gamblers will still deposit big money, right? Just imagine when such protection claims are enforced even better, then of course big gamblers no longer hold back from depositing more money. But for me, as an amateur gambler, I still only deposit money according to my ability and don't force myself to increase it because after all, gambling will be comfortable when we do it without pressure, right.

Just like protecting investment/trading, this organization can only be effective at local (one state) level, but it will require the casino to get the license for that particular state. Consequently, users must follow the strict KYC/AML policy from that state. In the crypto world, where casinos can operate globally, I don't think there will be such ombudsman agency/organization that can take care of users simply because the scope is too wide. What we have is scammy websites like game-protect, thus won't give any protection whatsoever. Better play in reputable casino that have strong forum presence so the arbitration can be done via forum.

This is good for all parties gamblers can play with ease of mind, and the gambling sites or companies will have more clients because players protection will motivate them to play, many newbies are having a second thoughts on playing because they might end up being cheated with gambling protection they can lose fair, but the government should make sure that they make a good judgment, they should protect both parties.

I have gambled on several gambling sites before, both fiat and crypto gambling sites, some betting sites can be fake, but good for individual gamblers to investigate that before even starting to bet on a particular site or before using a particular casino. If a gambling platform is not treating their customers well, or having issue with customers complaining negatively, that will possibly lead to the gambling platform not to be functioning again because people will not trust it, but the gambling reputed companies do not want what will lead to their company to fold up, they satisfy customers enough so that they can continue to use their betting platform, I do not think this is necessary as reputed gambling companies even satisfies customers rightly even more than many public settings.

I don't see the good sides of this idea, even in an ideal case. What is the point of inventing an additional official for a particular industry? There are already services that should solve all problems and punish fraudsters - the police, the prosecutor's office, the court, etc. Maybe it’s worth making them work better than coming up with new positions?

Uh I agree with it helping the casino and the gambler, but not on the side of addiction. The system isn't easy to implement since they need a LOT of personnel to respond to the complaints made. Some may be trolls, some may be legitimate, but since it asks about the "fairness" of the casino, then they need an actual person to address the problems. A single team is NOT enough for them to actually respond. Maybe make a periodic checking of systems that casino use might actually be better tbh.

I know that most gambling sites the data sent is recorded on the gambling site, as well as the wins and losses experienced by every gambling bettor.

That's where everyone involved in gambling must choose a gambling site that is honest and responsible for the data sent to them, for me to assess the security for data or access to gambling sites, only based on honesty and confidentiality, the site is really responsible for this, for the safety of the players.

I think perfect security lies with the gambling sites, confidentially and fairly.

It is likely that the police won't give a damn about your losses on a foreign casino that uses bitcoins. I agree in spirit, they should listen to you and solve the problem you are facing because you are paying their salaries with your taxes but then on the other hand there are too many of those fools that get scammed every day. You can't expect the limited police force to help every damn retard there is.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity.

I think people need more and better schools instead of more police.

On the one hand, I agree with you - especially if we are talking about crypto and assume complete decentralization (at least ideally) and everyone is responsible for their decisions.
But it is a good idea to make the existing police work in case of any problems (and not only in the field of gambling). For example, I recently searched for ASICs and was surprised to find many fake sites that are clearly engaged in fraud (they allegedly sell ASICs at a price of 10-15% from the real one), I see no reason why the police would not be involved in serching such frauds.

Even now educated people are easily getting scammed. In real-time myself experienced an incident. It is something like gambling. A well educated and retired employee was contacted by a well known person. He has said for $1000 you pay in advance we'll pay $10000 in a month. This way out of belief and trust over the person he had given $20000. Days passed nothing came back. Finally understood he had made fool of him. Now he is in a situation unable to complaint/contact police, because he don't have any document to state he gave money to him. Another thing if he go complaint, then the incident will come to light. This will create bad image to this person, because he had got good name in the society.

Now lost is lost forever, so better is to have prior understanding and analysis before depositing. Education is must along with the real life examples. Only then people will try to stand away from scam approaches.

Mindtrust explained:


So someone said give me $1k and I will give $10k in a month!!! x10 in a month without any explanation?! I would say that something is wrong with this educational system, and for sure something is wrong with this "well-known, educated person from this story"! :)

Here on the forum, you learn that pretty quickly if it sounds too good it's a big red flag, be extra careful if you plan to try it, or even better just move away!

Like KTCChampions I don't see any good sides of this idea, just another office... maybe the current institutions should try to do a better job, they are paid for that! But I don't see that happening either, at least in my country!

If that is about the addiction, that will depend on how that person or gambler reacts to his addiction.
That ombudsman can help the gambler who has a problem with the casino but that will only if the gambler is not making a mistake and the casino did that.
But maybe after that system is run, many complaints will be on their desk and need to be solved one by one and will need more resources to help that organization solve every case.
It is still a long journey before the government can approve that system and I think that will need awareness from the gambler itself because, at some point, they need to be responsible with their money.

remember that in areas were money is the main product? expect corruption and bribery here and there, because this even the bread and butter of government officials and  authority .
because how can they deny the offer when it costs more than 10x of their monthly salaries?
and also if you did not comply and support then surely you will be out of service soon because even higher ups are receiving  under the table from lobbyist .

Sad  but reality right? tons of money are involve in this and the gambling operator can offer amount that simple Ombudsman cannot resist lol.

Getting scammed because of your greed is one thing, (I also experienced something like this and that means you (and I) was stupid at that time)

Getting scammed by a bank or some other well known company is another thing.

Example 1: You did your research, you bought a used car from a very well used car seller that has the best reputation in town but the car wasn't like he described. There was a major flaw and the seller doesn't acknowledge the problem. That's a scam.

Example 2: You put your life savings on a crypto exchange that is beyond the reach of your country's law enforcement and you lost everything because the exchange went "poof". That's greed and stupidity.

Exactly, plus it can also help the business itself to flourish because the competitors that won't comply would probably end up with a failure in operation which leads to them closing and their clients finding another casino to satisfy their gambling thrills. But we also have to be smart, security should start individually so as to further strengthen the protection.

Besides, an Ombudsman does not usually have much power. It is not like a judge or a minister. I don't know exactly how it will be in the UK but it is an administrative figure that receives complaints and processes them, then reporting to Parliament or political representatives. It may improve things somewhat but if there is abuse, it will not eliminate it 100%.

Another thing is, as mentioned, crypto houses that operate with licenses in tax havens and operate in the UK illegally. There as they do not block access from the UK, which I understand would depend on the police on the orders of the judges, the Ombudsman has little to do. I don't think there are many people foolish enough to file a complaint about a crypto casino confessing that he has been gambling illegally in the UK.

If the said ombudsman is truthful to his work then yeah let me support your post mate, because like you i wanted a support and security in all the gambling site i am playing. not mentioning the real casino that is also having issues nowadays.
but if this section will only be used to make gambling world looks fair but underneath is only making fool of gamblers? then let them go to hell and lets forget about this called ombudsman thing because this will only support the gambling magnet and not the players in reality.

Gambling regulation has both positive and negative sides. As a supporter of anonymity I am not very interested in sharing my personal information with a casino or KYC provider just because I wanted to play some slots or poker. So I am more likely to give up any protection in favor of anonymity.

A coin will always have two sides as this regulated protection might provide cover to the gamblers if they have been cheated or been victim of fraud they can have some sort of guarantee that their funds are safe and they will get it if they submit report with valid proofs and some regulatory body intervention.But you might need to disclose all the information and they might have certain tax implications for the same.The annoymous players won't like it and they can have some issues with it.But still if their are regulations it can provide players freedom to gamble also.

For gamblers like me who do not gamble a lot, or risk a lot of money in gambling, this is not anymore necessary I feel that a regulated gambling industry will only eliminate the excitement, and it's even risky to submit for the KYC and let the government know that you are gambling.

Crypto casinos are popular because they are less regulated and gamblers like me get more entertainment than in fiat casinos where the government may anytime check your transactions.

I think those type of cases rarely happen between physical casinos since they have to undergo certain inspections and follow some guidelines the last thing they want to do is to make mistakes knowing it could put their business in danger. As long as you pick the right casinos and understand some of the rules they have then you shouldn't be having issues with your gambling activities. Having an extra layer of security is nice but I have to agree with the others an ombudsman isn't really needed I mean it's great if they could escalate some issues but imo it won't have that much impact since casinos have their own reasons whenever something goes wrong.

I feel quite safe because I do not gamble in new places that can turn out to be bad places. I have gambled in places we all know and love which means that I am doing fine and will probably keep doing fine as well. I have to say that if you are afraid of depositing money into a place, then you should probably not deposit money into that place.

Since this is not the topic of one casino I can give names, when you are gambling in the places like stake, sportsbet.io, freebitcoin, bustabit and few others like that you know that nothing will happen to your money which is why you do not have to worry about anything at all. I personally believe that we are doing fine by playing there. However if you insist on putting your money in some other place then you are going to have face the fact that there is a chance you could be scammed in that new place.

Should this be implemented on my country, I would be okay with it, though I must still observe due diligence so that I won't have to subject myself in the long and grueling process of awaiting verdict from such kinds of commissions or legal entities installed by the government for consumer safety. Though knowing that I don't change gambling platforms often, I think this wouldn't really matter much to me as a gambler, but it's still a relief to know that such commissions, persons, etc. exist to help with any complications they may be when it comes to the platform.

This will also aid those people looking to gamble on other places to assess and review them before depositing money and making their first bet.

He is right, many times we do not know whether to trust us or not, usually when they are casinos that take time just checking the reputation that has been marked by the members of the forum is enough for me, however here in the article they say something very interesting that I quote :

https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/uk/2021/07/23/richard-hayler-ibas-the-ombudsman-from-abstract-concept-to-a-workable-reality/ (https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/uk/2021/07/23/richard-hayler-ibas-the-ombudsman-from-abstract-concept-to-a-workable-reality/)

The cases of people in particular should be taken into account, sometimes they do not give the required importance to special cases, I think this is where everything lies, and therefore at least in the forum when it comes to scammers here they are put in evidence.

Have never felt protected in all my years of gambling online, to be honest, but then I never really put a lot of money down at unregulated casinos, (okay, except crypto dice and bankroll investments, but I've been pretty fortunate to never have been scammed).

Previous to crypto, I was using cards to deposit online so I always felt safe -- cards you just tell the bank what went wrong, and they always refund you, so I guess that's relying on consumer credit protection. And again here, I've never been scammed.

Sunday gambler of course, with hardly enough sums to raise eyebrows, so don't know if that's part of the reason?

The idea of a regulated mediator sounds cool. But please not game-protect style.

I do believe that to be true almost all the time. If something is too good to be true then it is usually not true at all. I do believe that we should be focusing on what WE can do and not what others can do for us, that is a lot better approach to making money. I understand that 10x deal sounds very good for some people but most likely outcome will be losing all of your money anyway.

I feel like chat part of any casino is the worst part, you will see all kinds of people, racist people, bigotry, swear words, scammers and many things like that because there is no legal action on it anyway, so when you say bad things or try to scam people the worst you can get is a ban, and then you will end up with a good result anyway in the long run because you can start another account and try it again as well, which means eventually you will get one in your hooks.

theres also a topic before about gambling insurances i do feel that they work the same ?
im gonna love it if gambling work that way but there could be extra fees and if its regulated it means we are going to send some documents to them ,thats the only thing i dont like .
for now the best thing that i can do is to be extra careful when dealing on new gambling sites and not to deposit big or store funds in them for a long time .

I really feel a Gambling ombudsman will be a waste of time, because this organization will only have jurisdiction over certain countries and most of these countries are already covered by their own laws. What we need.. is someone reputable in the industry that can audit casinos independently to see if they are profitably fair.

A lot of butt hurt gamblers that lost money, will lodge complaints with this so-called ombudsman and the complaints will pile up and it will take months to resolve some of these issues. Who will fund a gambling ombudsman to handle these complaints and will their jurisdiction cross country borders?

that would be the only problem in this if implemented , surely there must be KYC needed if ever we have issue and complaints about the involving site.

and this sucks for sure.

You may be successful in avoiding the new sites but even the old and known casinos & sportsbooks are now asking for documents more often than. Earlier when these casinos first came, the regulations were loose and the casinos were allowing players to play anonymously and even access from banned countries but now the scenario has changed and it's not easy to play from restricted countries or play without KYC.

This is the reason that although I still play at crypto casinos but I am slowly moving back to the fiat ones because they were far superior in everything but anonymity and now that crypto casinos are more strict towards KYC, it makes no sense.

I think that once the business grows big they are now being required with those requirements and they are also afraid to loose their growing business so they have no choice but to comply with it  but not all old sites are like but there are some left that operates without a kyc and If ever your affected much better if you move on to the other or move to fiat casinos when your not bothered of sending your kyc because they could offer more .

You don't need an independent party to perform audits for provably fair because as a gambler you can verify your own bets quite easily and there are many provably fair tools online which will verify the result if you just enter the seeds which are revealed by the casino once you change the seed pairs.

I am of the same opinion on this matter. It is much better to play at sites you have known and tested and that should usually be enough and from my personal experience, leaving apart a few selective scams most of them are quite good. I haven't been scammed by a casino yet so maybe I don't know the full story though.

I agree with @RealMalatesta say to play on the known gambling site that already proves it's a good gambling site than to play on an unknown gambling site that we do not have experience or others review. We will not have a bad experience and that will depend on good luck when we play on that site and if somehow, we lose, that will mean our luck is not coming to us.

If the ombudsman is running, I can not imagine how many cases they will solve and investigate and I think most cases can happen because of the gambler's mistake. But well, maybe in some countries, the ombudsman can be applied to reduce the number of people who get scam.

The original idea behind cryptocurrencies was that it was impossible for any regulator to be involved in the process of buying and selling assets. That is why online casinos were happy to include support for cryptocurrencies. Currently, state-regulated casinos cannot provide the user with anonymity and security of their personal data. In addition, regulators cannot completely secure us from fraud. That is why I am against any regulation.

Yes, you are right. The online casinos will be far away from the regulations in one country and besides that, the casino can host their site out of the country's jurisdiction that prohibits or has strict rules for the casino. The casino will not have a problem with that to still protect their members by not requiring KYC for the members. The regulators should understand that and they can not force the online casino to follow or provide the data or whatever they want.

There's nothing like good protection you know that when you have a valid complaint, there is an agency that will resolve it, even if it turns out not in your favor at least you have brought your case and fight for it, we have seen so many gambling sites that are losing their case because they are at the mercy of the gambling site, they decide what is fair, and you have no choice but to take whether you like it or not.

Not a bad idea but there will be some problems with an ombudsman put in place.

1- Not all casinos will agree to share information with the ombudsman.
2- The ombudsman might be operating legally for casinos from one country or few but how would you cover all the casinos
3- What happens if the casino claims something else and the player says something else because obviously data can be faked by the casino
4- A large number of fake complaints will pile up and take ages to solve them

Crypto and online casinos are two different concepts.

Crypto itself is (for now) not regulated and you can freely send and receive coins without and disruptions unless you go through an exchange.

Online Casinos however usually don't operate on a blockchain and they have gambling licenses, paying taxes etc which ties them to a government. When you pay taxes to a government or do certain stuff to have a gambling license it means you have partners which you can't fire. Since you can't fire the government or your license provider, you will have to do what they ask from you.

But what if you've invested your money in a site that doesn't care about its users and you didn't realize it because you didn't read the terms and conditions? It is not difficult to find a gambling site that, unless it has been established, will prosecute their cases; it is either illegal or not. My point is that we should only invest in the well-established ones, so that if we do have a case to fight, they will usually resolve it on their own, unless it is our fault.

Of course, who would not want protection, we want to lose fair and do not want to have a feeling that we've been cheated, it's better that we have a third-party mediator that will look at our case on who is right, people will play confidently and will wager more if they have a peace of mind playing, knowing that they are going to lose and win in a fair way, we are up to the mercy of the gambling site if they have a case against us.

And besides, the gambling site will have the seal of approval from the third party, that they are compliant.

This will only bring another corrupt person to become Millionaire in short time .

Because we knew how gambling operates , and surely the under the table process will be active in this part again.

Definitely not, to be honest.

These government bodies are moreso there for show than to actually protect players imho. When there is an actual issue with a crypto sportsbook or whatnot, do you really think they have the attention or the resources to track it down?

You're the only one that has the ultimate control over your consumer rights - so make sure you DYOR before you entrust a service with any amount of money.

That will be their mistake if they invest their money in a site that does not care about their users because they do not find out if that site cares about their members or not. The ombudsman can fight with the site breaking its own rule and cheating its members, but if we do not find out what that site is, the ombudsman can not do anything. Maybe the ombudsman can help us have protection if somehow we get cheated by the casino so they can investigate the case and report it to the regulators.

This is indeed tricky and I do not know the one that exists but even if we have one, the authorities should have a means for them to operate that is fair to both parties, yes the case will pile up but they must have a means to check the allegations they are mandated to solve the case in a time that is satisfactory to both parties.

I love to see one so we'll know if it will suceed.

More regulation means more guarantees for players.
Of course, direct communication with the ombusman in a particular jurisdiction will increase the guarantees and reduce the doubts of the end user. At least it will look like this.

It is better to know that there is a third party mediator that would going to foresee if there is a complaints in a one side party especially on a gamblers or players because sometimes the complaints of the gambler were being invalidated without a proper investigation on the said incidents. I think it could also give some sort of comfort for the player to gamble with a thought of a secureness when there's an unexpected foul play going around on the gambling site or gambling establishments. The more at peace the gambler or player the more a gambling site or gambling establishments could build a good reputation and more regulations means there are more guarantees for players.

The thing is that in such a dispute the protection of the player by the authorities is practically not feasible, since if the state authorities are able to track transactions in the blockchain thanks to analytical blockchain services, all operations performed at the level of online casinos are not public and, therefore, can be changed at any time and it is impossible to prove it.

But you must not forget that the Ombudsman receives a salary like all other structures attached to him. The casino will clearly not pay for these regulations out of pocket, so all costs will go to the gamblers. Therefore, there is an insoluble problem - even an ideal regulation (if it can exist at all and not contradict the interests of the gambler) has drawbacks since it costs money and the gambler pays for it.

I don't like this approach.  I assume that adults play gambling.  

Adults are able to adequately assess risks.  Adults are able to make informed decisions on their own.  If there is a fact of fraud, then it is necessary to report to the police.  

A gambling Ombudsman is not required.  There is also no need to force online casinos towards self-regulatory organizations.  

Such measures will lead to additional costs for online casinos.  These costs will be compensated by the players themselves.  Playing in online casinos will become less comfortable.  

This is bad.

Absolutely correct.

That's why cryptocurrency is decentralized and the Government still can't regulates it because it's too hard for them to do so. So having an ombudsman in an online gambling for example is basically useless unless he can track those transactions and accurately judge who's transaction is this, something like that, if not, then what's the point. If you're a gambler, you should always take the full responsibility on your funds and how you play gambling to avoid consequences in the long run.

I think this question is two folds, for people who are not doing anything wrong and are playing in the bounds of the rules and regulations then they have nothing to be afraid of and I do think those people might have no probelms with it.
But when we are talking about the people who generally take privacy a lot more serious then for then this might be a really big problem and also there are people who try and do whatever they can to earn money which generally does not always involve being in rules and regulations so for them this question is atrocious.
For me, I personally don't mind as long as privacy is not compromised.

yes, the thing is that its hard to regulate everything and sometimes making things more closed opens possibilities like incentives for bribing fiscals, etc...

anyways for gambling websites its usually better that they play it right and earn more on the long run than try to fool costumers

While it is obvious that more regulation is probably going to give more security to the gamblers one of the reasons that I am part of this market has to do with the fact that a great deal of the people in it believe in reducing the intervention of the government as much as possible, and while regulations sometimes are necessary at the same time I do not think that people should rely on them and instead should rely on themselves, and if they happen to see something wrong with the casino then they should stop playing there.

Of course I would definitely be more comfortable playing knowing that I can contest my losses when I know and feel that there's some cheating behind the game although I feel that it's all just a dream because I am sure that contesting in real life is going to take a long time because there's investigations and some casinos might even do some intimidation or bribery to stop or collude the investigation.

In fact, since entering gambling, I have often experienced problems with deposits and poor services by the operator. But so far for crypto gambling it's not that bad when it comes to casinos that provide fiat deposits. Since the Ombudsman may be more effectively used as an intermediary to report such acts, can gambling using fiat also be explicitly reprimanded by the Ombudsman?