I would be utterly underwhelmed if i had invested in this platform after this announcement http://bitcoinprbuzz.com/betterbetting-continues-development-betr-platform/ A handful of soccer leagues and the world cup is not going to take over the gambling world...

Unikrn have a normal Malta gaming license for gambling with FIAT on their platform. Malta hasn't actually given out any "sandboxed crypto licenses" yet to anyone as its still in very early consultancy stages atm. Even when Malta do finally agree to the framework of the sandboxed license its always takes a very long time for the MGA to actually put these things into practice. The MGA is known as one of the slowest gaming licensing authority in the world.

If you do KYC you have to do for every single player not just X or Y who win over a certain amount of bitcoins. Anyone laundering money always keeps the amounts low and different for the churn so these companies doing KYC on withdrawal is ridiculous. It's not KYC in any legal way so we should stop referring to it as KYC.

It is a really impressive team that has been put together but reading the whitepaper there is literally one paragraph dedicated to KYC which is basically "you don't need to do KYC". This throws up so many questions to a prospective investor so could you please answer these for me:

1. As a New York state resident how can i use coinvest without a) Coinvest holding a "Bitlicense" from the state and b) doing all that without KYC?
2. Why are you having to go through strident US verification processes for a service that won't even need KYC for customers?

KYC, especially for decentralised funds are imperative to get right and Coinvest's approach to this is imperative to the success of this investment. Maybe i'm missing something so could the coinvest representative please expand on this?

Thanks

Some believe that KYC won't even be tenable with the lightening network on BTC https://www.finder.com.au/lightning-network-incompatible-with-kyc-andreas-antonopoulos and there isn't a single crypto gambling site doing KYC anywhere. Know your customer has to be legally undertaken for AML compliance reasons BEFORE your business accepts any funds. This is not the case with any of these brands. Why is there logically a limit for a site like bitstarz or bitcasino to KYC for regulatory reasons? There isn't any logic behind it apart from it being a safety net to limit them from losing money to fraudsters or double depositors etc.

...and the Earth is flat.

Hi TH. Cashbet refer to their original business as having legitimacy with a license for REGULATED gambling activity but are heavily leaning on that premise without actually saying that they are licensed for crypto-gambling because they are not. Alderney and the UK DO not allow crypto betting in any form with their licensing. Most crypto betting sites are blocked within the UK, for example. Every single gambling ICO will face exactly the same issue regarding regulation and there is no current format or structure to this. The EU and the UK in the last week have both basically said they want regulation of crypto's to happen and if that happens you can't be both regulated and offer a global gambling product, its completely illogical. Regulation is the concept of centralisation and licensing to a countries particular guidelines. I am looking forward to all these class action law suits that will be brought against people like Cashbet in the future.

Wow, what a load of BS. First: Betfair never has and never will pay or charge anyone in USD so this $4600 is garbage that you refer to. Many other regulated exchanges exist that offer a huge reduction in commissions and still don't get anywhere close to betfair, why? Second point: Betfair offers a huge pool of liquidity of LOSERS. For a professional gambler to win money on Betfair he has to be able to make margin off the everyday user from the Betfair site. These guys, with their seventh-grade looking "demo" (that doesn't even demo anything remotely decentralised or blockchain it basically shows you a very crap centralised sportsbook ui) aren't going to be able to attract the every day user in volumes that Betfair can in order for the professional bettors to find it worth their while. Apparently Andrey Rybalchenko, Betrium's betting guru, has made $150k in arbitrage betting since 2013. That's not even anything to do with seeding a gambling market, he basically took advantage of inefficiencies in the betting lines and abused them. The knowledge to do this style of betting (unbelievable easy - the hard part is having accounts that don't get closed for arbitrage abuse) vs actually setting the lines on Betfair is the equivalent of Andrey being class President and then asking you to vote him as the President of Ukraine this year due to that experience. The whitepaper is sloppy, there are grammatical errors everywhere. I actually think the concept of being a portal for people setting up their own events (particularly e-sports, as they mention) is a half decent idea but if i was investing in this i'd say cut out the marketing crap, show me an actual demo of how i can set up on event, make a market and publish that? Technically its not actually that hard to produce this as an MVP on the blockchain - so why the crap sportsbook which has nothing to do with the main premise of this ICO? Probably because they don't have a clue about blockchain technology. The other question i would ask, is how will Betrium create nodes to verify the contracts that are decentralised from the initial event organiser to make the outcome impartial and transparent? You become the bookmaker vs the customer but you also need to verify the outcome of an event yourself and, for me, a bookmaker that controls a) the actual event im betting on and b) the resulting of that event says HUGE potential for corruption. This is a badly thought out and executed sportsbook blockchain idea and project. Another one off the Ukrainian scam ICO conveyor belt.

Cashbet the platform is licensed for certain activities pertaining to their regulatory function in the UK and Alderney. What people don't seem to get is that they have EXACTLY the same legal status in gaming as any other crypto casino or sportsbook because crypto IS NOT regulated in those jurisdictions. Jesus wept and you guys are willing to plonk money into this and don't understand the basics of gaming regulations? Fools > money > adios.

I suppose it all boils down to the casino's generally needing to convert the players crypto into FIAT to cover operating and other associated costs, once you make that leap from crypto into that world of FIAT then anti-money laundering is going to bite you in the ass and you have to show you undertook the minimal KYC to cover your own ass in this case. If a casino decides to stay crypto then its not so much a problem but at the moment you can't pay for things like server costs on clouds in crypto-coins so pretty much every casino must convert to FIAT. Most of the big casino slot providers don't even allow payment in crypto either so if you want to play any of these really good games the casino must pay for your spins in FIAT. As time as wore on its getting harder to find any exchanges to FIAT that don't carry out stringent KYC and most will turn away gaming operators to start off with. For a business account you must show you are carrying out due diligence with your own customers or else the exchange could eventually run foul of future regulatory financial oversight also. Crypto is great if you want to hodl but running a crypto service you encounter everyday costs that you can't pay in bitcoin. This is one reason why KYC is encroaching into the space.

I like forward to these patents being tested in the future.

If you notice cashbet is supplied with games by exactly the same third-party casino and slot game suppliers as people like bitstarz and bitcasino.io and somehow you can't trust the math on those platforms but you can on cashbet? On top of this, bitstarz, for example, offers provably fair hashing of its casino games willingly for the same suppliers that cashbet has so i fail to see what cashbet offers vs some of the other casino's that already exist.

Can someone please explain to me how IP based on open sourced code and work that is clearly not Unikrn's own in its original format can be patented? And then Rahul Sood still claims it to be decentralised? Unikrn is surely up for the "literal opposite of what satoishi wanted to achieve" award? You take a concept and initial technology thats not even your own, you take institutionalised VC money until you are balls deep in it you can't move then offer video game betting - again which has been around for years - and you have the audacity to call it "decentralised"? Rahul is the Donald Trump of crypto, draining that crypto swamp one venture investment round at a time. And if you don't agree he will sue your ass.

Hi Smarakland, the limits are way higher exactly because the team lineups are announced so the biggest variables have been taken into account for the outcome of the match. In asia it is called the "opening" price and the last price before kick off is called "the closing" price. The best syndicate football models are now based upon ranking of players in a football match and poisson distribution is created from this and their own price created. This can only happen once the official line-up has been announced. Asia throws open their limits around this time on their own inferred probability - which is generally a little outside the best syndicate model - and they will happily lose money to the syndicates for this information. As long as the syndicates only takes about 95/96% efficiency at that opening price the asian bookies can then alter their lines and still make a killing v all the other bets they take that are from bad gamblers. They then have a solid closing price to start their in-play model, which is important.

The concept of the foundation and its efforts to legitimise and clean up the murky crypto-gambling world is to be applauded but how can a foundation that was founded and run by two leading provably fair casino's be considered to be impartial? A true foundation would have an impartial board of trustees who are transparent in their affiliations (and not two in-house people that vet companies based on their own values) as well as a trustee that independently represents the consumer. For all the best intentions in the world this is not how this such be approached. Perhaps if the founders could pass this on to more impartial individuals it would be better but atm this is basically a PR exercise for those casino's.

If they really wanted to push this further they would publish a white paper outlining what should be considered to be fair industry standards and liaise with the community and brands to establish this independently and transparently. This could then act as a Trustpilot type scheme for brands to sign up to.

KYC in crypto casino's is generally adopted by the brand for several reasons:

1. the most legitimate reason is that they have acquired a curacao sub-license - not that curacao offers the player any protections in general - because it is the minimal and easiest gambling license to get that third-party casino providers will recognise. they are big companies and need to only provide to licensed entities in order to offer their games within the legal threshold.
2. brands use it as a net to close out any scammers and bonus abusers. this is a huge problem and players who love their sign up deposits and bonus spins etc should start to realise that without proper KYC and T&C's the general public, who are playing for entertainment sake, won't get such good offers (this is actually why i think we've seen such a reduction in decent bonus and promos from casino's recently because they can't handle the rampant bonus abuse from VERY smart people who know exactly how to extract free money from casinos). This is why regulated online casino's make you do more thorough KYC when signing up so they can detect frauds before they win the cash.
3. they are bs'ing the customer because they know most people in the crypto space who deposit with them will hesitate before sharing the very confidential and personal information such as passports etc.

Here are my tips:

If you have a sportsbook dispute due to KYC then find out if they have a Curacao sub-license first. If they do then they technically should have asked you to go through a minimal KYC standard first - knowing an email and username is not enough by Curucao license terms and i think LITERALLY every crypto sportsbook and casino with a Curacao is breaking their licensing terms by not doing this. If they do not have a Curacao license then KYC is ridiculous and not necessary. You "KYC" to ensure you are compliant to gambling regulation laws you are licensed by, if you have no license then theres literally no reason to KYC. If you find yourself in a dispute with a casino that has a curacao license and they didn't take you through a minimal KYC to begin with then again, as with sportsbook, they are in breach of their license.

------ Think about it know your customer basically means "can you identify your customer with minimal legal documentation and proof of residency and know where the proceeds are coming from BEFORE accepting them?" Not a single brand does that at the minute so saying its in the terms and conditions is UTTERLY ridiculous as its not technically KYC AFTER they deposit. ------

If all else fails then find the third-party casino operator (the guys who provide the slots or blackjack etc) that you may have had the issue with and approach them with the complaint. The casino you are using is basically only licensing these games from the operators for a revenue share and as a consequence they have terms and conditions (normally based on the license) to offer the player a fair and legal experience with their software.

Hi, the reason most guys use Pinnacle is because the API is so readily available but they don't quote prices early because the other asian bookies don't either because professional gamblers don't make early bets but only generally, in soccer, when the team lineups appear. Hope this helps.

Hi stonehenge, its seems to me that people don't really understand, or potentially have been mislead in to thinking, that this coin is part of any regulatory framework. It is not. Both Alderney and the UK gaming commissions, which cashbet hold their regulated licenses under DO NOT allow crypto-gambling or any ICO's to be associated with their licenses. There is currently only one license, Gibraltar, that would allow any DLT (distributed ledger) to be allowed under their structure. Cashbet are suggesting that they will build and offer services to the rest of the non-licensed crypto space. They will have NO license to supply these entities because no gaming license they hold allows this to occur. So lets envisage it:

1. cashbet does its ICO
2. It raises investment for its coin
3. it starts to build services for the crypto gaming and casino space
4. those 40+ providers they currently have their regulated platform will not be available on this new platform (go ahead and actually ask them this) because those providers of slots and casino's also themselves have to adhere to regulation in the distribution of these games and don't touch crypto platforms (go into the gambling chat area and ask about when providers are not available or actually sometimes geo-blocked from crypto users)
5. Alderney and UK gaming commission say to Cashbet "hey you hold licenses with us but we have no regulated crypto so supplying this area and promoting gambling of unlicensed crypto gaming sites is illegal in our jurisdiction. Stop or we will take away your license."
6. They have a thriving business already so won't jeopardise that so will ditch the cashbet coin
7. As an investor you have literally no recourse legally as its an unregulated asset class in the UK.
8. Congrats you pissed your bitcoin against the wall.

 

Cashbet is a licensed gaming company and complies will all the laws. Is it possible to support the goals and potential of blockchain, yet comply with laws at the same time

[/quote]

This is factually untrue. For this venture Cashbet IS NOT regulated AT ALL and is actually grossly in contravention of its Alderney and UK gaming license terms to be promoting any forms of gambling that are not regulated. They are regulated for casino gaming for FIAT currencies only. Any illusion to the fact that their licensed entity in Alderney or UK has any bearing to their ICO is 1. false advertising and as i've said before 2. a breach of their licensing terms in both jurisdictions. You can't play both sides of the fence on this one; you can't promote decentralised, unregulated blockchain gambling whilst in fact holding centralised, regulated licenses in order to undertake that. It is 1, completely illogical and 2, Cashbet runs the risk of losing their licensing in both territories as a consequence. Would these guys throw away their core business if the regulators demanded that they stopped promoting what they considered to be "illegal gambling" by their local governance terms? I don't think so therefore this project has very little merit and is literally just a cash grab by cashbet. The business model makes no sense whatsoever going by the terms and conditions the company has to work under. I expect the UKGC to at least write to cashbet to inform them of their terms of holding a license. Acknowledgment of either licenses in this ICO is illegal under their licensing terms also. Very amateur from cashbet.

So a company that believes in the decentralisation of gambling is raising an ICO and is using its own platform that completely relies upon a regulated and centralised system in order to do that. Makes any sense to literally anyone to invest in this? Surely not. The owning business is in the USA, i'd like to see them take one solitary bet officially through this platform in the States - just one spin of a casino reel - in order to prove that they will be ok from their own piece-of-mind to break US law for this business to be successful. The entire gambling industry is currently spending billions to lobby the US federal government to allow gambling and somehow cashbet - who clearly understand from their own business model in Europe that they need to be regulated - think they can skip past this? No, of course they don't think that. They basically expect mugs with little knowledge or oversight of the intricacies of gambling and its legalities to invest in this "gold-rush" scheme. The biggest online casino market on earth is China and they are nailing crypto's to wall at the moment so and with the US market not being touched why would you bother investing in a scheme where the founders would not dare touch any regulated, licensed or banned countries with their platform, as they would actually be in contravention of their own licensing laws. I am actually going to take this up with the Alderney Gambling commission where Cashbet holds its licensing as I am quite sure by promoting non-licensed gambling they are in breach of their terms of holding that license. Guys, wake up and smell the coffee Cashbet are looking for a quick buck from us. Projects like Gnosis and Augur have tremendous merit but this is an utter sham. What Arsenal were thinking to allow these guys a sponsorship deal is utterly surreal.