Crypto-Casinos and KYC

[tabas]

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

But what if they suddenly asked you for KYC and your funds were stuck there? I think I'll just have to do it if that happens to me. I've seen some situations told that in the forum that they've been through with that.
After the compliance, then that will be the time I'll choose with the other options.

Yes it becomes a different situation and requires us to give KYC, even though we are not ready for that but if we still need the money then there is nothing else we can do but give KYC. It's a different case if it's just a small amount of money and we can still let the money go, then we can leave the site and look for something else but indeed, giving KYC seems like it would be easy to do on exchanges not on gambling sites.

Yes, if the amount is small and you're fine of not taking it then we don't have to comply with KYC. But if that amount matters to you, you have to withdraw it.
And you'll definitely fine complying with the KYC. Well, that's just another situation that I've thought of.

[Fatunad]

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

But what if they suddenly asked you for KYC and your funds were stuck there? I think I'll just have to do it if that happens to me. I've seen some situations told that in the forum that they've been through with that.
After the compliance, then that will be the time I'll choose with the other options.

Yes it becomes a different situation and requires us to give KYC, even though we are not ready for that but if we still need the money then there is nothing else we can do but give KYC. It's a different case if it's just a small amount of money and we can still let the money go, then we can leave the site and look for something else but indeed, giving KYC seems like it would be easy to do on exchanges not on gambling sites.

Yes, if the amount is small and you're fine of not taking it then we don't have to comply with KYC. But if that amount matters to you, you have to withdraw it.
And you'll definitely fine complying with the KYC. Well, that's just another situation that I've thought of.

Matter of choice and it would be definitely depending on how much amount is been locked up into your account because some wont really care at all if its just small for the exchange of their personal info and some would just comply even its just way too small..
People do have their own impression towards KYc some would be mindful and some wouldn't really care because they do believe that theres nothing need to worry
about as long you don't do anything wrong.

[tabas]

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

But what if they suddenly asked you for KYC and your funds were stuck there? I think I'll just have to do it if that happens to me. I've seen some situations told that in the forum that they've been through with that.
After the compliance, then that will be the time I'll choose with the other options.

Yes it becomes a different situation and requires us to give KYC, even though we are not ready for that but if we still need the money then there is nothing else we can do but give KYC. It's a different case if it's just a small amount of money and we can still let the money go, then we can leave the site and look for something else but indeed, giving KYC seems like it would be easy to do on exchanges not on gambling sites.

Yes, if the amount is small and you're fine of not taking it then we don't have to comply with KYC. But if that amount matters to you, you have to withdraw it.
And you'll definitely fine complying with the KYC. Well, that's just another situation that I've thought of.

Matter of choice and it would be definitely depending on how much amount is been locked up into your account because some wont really care at all if its just small for the exchange of their personal info and some would just comply even its just way too small..
People do have their own impression towards KYc some would be mindful and some wouldn't really care because they do believe that theres nothing need to worry
about as long you don't do anything wrong.

I agree that we have different thoughts when it comes to money and even if it's just a small amount, some won't let it pass and will have to go for the KYC.
Regardless of the amount as long as they're the owner of it, they're going to do anything that they can and if it's just the KYC as the requirement, they won't hesitate to do it.

[madnessteat]

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

In my opinion, there may be a security loophole in both cases. I don't think the system for storing user data on exchanges is much higher than on gambling sites.

Can you tell me why you think that sending your documents to an exchange exposes you to less risk than sending documents to a gambling site?

[Stedsm]

@OP, your first question is where I'd stop by saying No right away, because if I know that the casino may ask KYC, it means I may be asked to do KYC if/when I win something big there that they either possibly can't pay out/don't want to pay out/will pay out only after getting my docs and I don't want to get doxxed for gambling purposes.

[suzanne5223]

I don't see any difference in using an exchange and casino, if the exchange asks for KYC, then casinos should be treated the same as long as they are both regulated.

I have to disagree. Although in general, we are risking money at both, activities in exchanges and casinos are different so I can't consider the latter should also be mandated by KYC. Let the casinos be regulated but not too much. Crypto-gamblers should still feel the advantage of playing in a crypto-casino. No difference when you played at fiat casinos if that will be the case.

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

I understand the reason why KYC was introduced in the crypto casino site and exchange site you know that the above user was absolutely right because crypto gamblers does feel the advantage of playing anonymously before people abuse the advantage which is what lead to the birth of KYC in the crypto scheme and the last time I check no casino will operate outside their master license holder rules.
If your favorite casino doesn't ask for KYC now, I can guarantee you that they will at some point when the time comes.

[tippytoes]

I don't see any difference in using an exchange and casino, if the exchange asks for KYC, then casinos should be treated the same as long as they are both regulated.

I have to disagree. Although in general, we are risking money at both, activities in exchanges and casinos are different so I can't consider the latter should also be mandated by KYC. Let the casinos be regulated but not too much. Crypto-gamblers should still feel the advantage of playing in a crypto-casino. No difference when you played at fiat casinos if that will be the case.

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

I understand the reason why KYC was introduced in the crypto casino site and exchange site you know that the above user was absolutely right because crypto gamblers does feel the advantage of playing anonymously before people abuse the advantage which is what lead to the birth of KYC in the crypto scheme and the last time I check no casino will operate outside their master license holder rules.
If your favorite casino doesn't ask for KYC now, I can guarantee you that they will at some point when the time comes.

And if you are a high roller, expect that at some point the casino may require you to complete the KYC requirements. But if you are just a small timer, better stick to reputable sites here that don't require KYC yet. Whereas, some casinos are already requiring KYC because as you said, that's what their license is asking them to implement. But of course, it is still good to play on casinos that don't require KYC, just abide their rules and I don't think they will flag your account.

[Slow death]

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

But what if they suddenly asked you for KYC and your funds were stuck there? I think I'll just have to do it if that happens to me. I've seen some situations told that in the forum that they've been through with that.
After the compliance, then that will be the time I'll choose with the other options.

You won't get into that situation If you didn't violated the terms of conditions. They can't just freeze your account just because they wanted to, otherwise it's the company's  violation and you can report it to the authorities.
Those you have read in the forums about frozen accounts might've overlooked the deposit and withdrawal rules limit. So they were asked to pass the KYC procedure.

reality has shown us that some sites have used the TOS as a way of freezing people's accounts and always with the excuse that people are using the site from a prohibited place or that people have too many accounts and when asking the site Show Evidence The site says it can't show evidence because that would divulge the methods they use to find out who uses a lot of accounts. and I ask: who can prevent websites from using the TOS for harmful purposes? only the government has that power. but unfortunately what you see in the online world is sad, customers must do KYC on sites where they are anonymous with anonymous owners

[SaShiRaJaVu]

reality has shown us that some sites have used the TOS as a way of freezing people's accounts and always with the excuse that people are using the site from a prohibited place or that people have too many accounts and when asking the site Show Evidence The site says it can't show evidence because that would divulge the methods they use to find out who uses a lot of accounts. and I ask: who can prevent websites from using the TOS for harmful purposes? only the government has that power. but unfortunately what you see in the online world is sad, customers must do KYC on sites where they are anonymous with anonymous owners

The website has the power as a business organization to enforce their terms of service so that their business interest are well protected. These websites are created to make the profit and if people are taking advantage of the system then they have the authority to stop the abuse and basically protect their business but if they are open like Stake as it is not mandatory to verify my identity unless i looking for their bonuses .

[Oasisman]

~snip~.

~snip~.

You won't get into that situation If you didn't violated the terms of conditions. They can't just freeze your account just because they wanted to, otherwise it's the company's  violation and you can report it to the authorities.
Those you have read in the forums about frozen accounts might've overlooked the deposit and withdrawal rules limit. So they were asked to pass the KYC procedure.

reality has shown us that some sites have used the TOS as a way of freezing people's accounts and always with the excuse that people are using the site from a prohibited place or that people have too many accounts and when asking the site Show Evidence The site says it can't show evidence because that would divulge the methods they use to find out who uses a lot of accounts. and I ask: who can prevent websites from using the TOS for harmful purposes? only the government has that power. but unfortunately what you see in the online world is sad, customers must do KYC on sites where they are anonymous with anonymous owners

That's always gonna be the primary reason why an account has to be freezed. TOS is always susceptible to abuse and could be used against you especially when you make a very noticeable wins and withdrawal amount. That's the sad reality of it.
The regulated crypto gambling websites are required to comply with the AMLC thus KYC is necessary, that completely contradicts the purpose of being anonymous in crypto space.
Another sad reality.

[Ratash]

I think kyc should not be applied in online gambling casinos because you won the money fair and square and if they decide to apply it they should provide a trustworthy people to handle the kyc report and they should be well known to the custumer to avoid the blackmail and scams as you said.

[suzanne5223]

I don't see any difference in using an exchange and casino, if the exchange asks for KYC, then casinos should be treated the same as long as they are both regulated.

I have to disagree. Although in general, we are risking money at both, activities in exchanges and casinos are different so I can't consider the latter should also be mandated by KYC. Let the casinos be regulated but not too much. Crypto-gamblers should still feel the advantage of playing in a crypto-casino. No difference when you played at fiat casinos if that will be the case.

I'd rather comply with KYC on exchanges compare to gambling sites. They shouldn't have the same approach. Even if my favorite gambling site will ask its users for KYC, no way. There are lots of options to choose from.

I understand the reason why KYC was introduced in the crypto casino site and exchange site you know that the above user was absolutely right because crypto gamblers does feel the advantage of playing anonymously before people abuse the advantage which is what lead to the birth of KYC in the crypto scheme and the last time I check no casino will operate outside their master license holder rules.
If your favorite casino doesn't ask for KYC now, I can guarantee you that they will at some point when the time comes.

And if you are a high roller, expect that at some point the casino may require you to complete the KYC requirements. But if you are just a small timer, better stick to reputable sites here that don't require KYC yet. Whereas, some casinos are already requiring KYC because as you said, that's what their license is asking them to implement. But of course, it is still good to play on casinos that don't require KYC, just abide their rules and I don't think they will flag your account.

High roller are the only user casino ask for KYC and the last time I check they ask user for KYC footing the amount deposit, won, withdraw or if there's something fishy about the account activities.
Casino flagging account have to do with the account holder activities though we have a situation some flag user account for no reason

[Ziskinberg]

I think kyc should not be applied in online gambling casinos because you won the money fair and square and if they decide to apply it they should provide a trustworthy people to handle the kyc report and they should be well known to the custumer to avoid the blackmail and scams as you said.

If it's already in the TOS before you sign it up, then we should not blame them for that, instead, we have to blame ourselves for not reading the TOS. There are some casinos that have KYC while some do not require it, so we are free to choose what casino to play with, complaining or making it a standard won't really work as not all of the casinos are under one regulator.

[Natalim]

I think kyc should not be applied in online gambling casinos because you won the money fair and square and if they decide to apply it they should provide a trustworthy people to handle the kyc report and they should be well known to the custumer to avoid the blackmail and scams as you said.

If it's already in the TOS before you sign it up, then we should not blame them for that, instead, we have to blame ourselves for not reading the TOS. There are some casinos that have KYC while some do not require it, so we are free to choose what casino to play with, complaining or making it a standard won't really work as not all of the casinos are under one regulator.

The problem is not everyone who signs up for a new gambling site reads the TOS, I think more than 50% of people who sign, the main reason is that the TOS is long and it's very technical that we find it boring, and also, it's understandable as majority of gamblers does not risk a decent amount of money and they can take the risk of losing their account.

[Silberman]

That's a good point because based on my observation, most casinos I played do not ask for KYC, so crypto casinos are still good for me. However, if regulation changes and they'll require a KYC, then there's nothing I could do but follow. I don't see any difference in using an exchange and casino, if the exchange asks for KYC, then casinos should be treated the same as long as they are both regulated.

Most casinos are going to be very reluctant to ask for such information because they know very well that most players are not going to want to give up that information because one of the main reasons why people gamble at cryptocurrency casinos is that they want protect their privacy, they will only ask this information when absolutely necessary and even then they are going to be nervous because if they ask this from some of their big players and they are a small casino they know they are risking losing that player to another casino.

[seleme]

Tbh, I feel safer on anonymous casinos but the situation has changed a lot since the regulation brought up to crypto casinos. The fiat casinos have some advantages over crypto casinos but the disadvantages are possible for high rollers. You can place over $500k in crypto gambling websites but your account will be frozen by management for the same amount in fiat casinos. Before registering account, reading the terms of service helps a lot how much users wanna risk without KYC.

[stadus]

Tbh, I feel safer on anonymous casinos but the situation has changed a lot since the regulation brought up to crypto casinos. The fiat casinos have some advantages over crypto casinos but the disadvantages are possible for high rollers. You can place over $500k in crypto gambling websites but your account will be frozen by management for the same amount in fiat casinos. Before registering account, reading the terms of service helps a lot how much users wanna risk without KYC.

Not only it will be frozen, but it's also easy for the casino to go away taking that huge money because in this industry it's easy to make a new casino since it's anonymous. Actually, I believe that crypto casinos usually attract small bettors but they are still making huge money because they are getting the volume of gamblers, and I think it's not too risky for gamblers that way and they'll take it than abiding on the KYC that fiat casinos normally implements.

Imagine, even if you are an underdog, you can gamble here since you can lie on your age when you sign up, and since there's no KYC, you can freely gamble without any problem as long as you don't gamble a lot that would ring a bell on the casino.

[goinmerry]

Imagine, even if you are an underdog, you can gamble here since you can lie on your age when you sign up, and since there's no KYC, you can freely gamble without any problem as long as you don't gamble a lot that would ring a bell on the casino.

Fairly right.

You can just catch the attention of the casino if your activity will ring the bell.

Stay low-key and avoid big withdrawals at once if ever luck hits us. That way, no need to be under of complying with KYC under their terms for big winnings as sometimes even we got those big winnings fair and square, it will be tagged as malicious and suspicious which is quite unfair and not reasonable.

[Lorence.xD]

~

We can hope that some reputations gambling site will still do that way to give anonymously to their members. Maybe if the casino is out of the government jurisdiction, the casino will not have to follow the regulation from the government, so they can still operate without asking KYC to their members. Hopefully, crypto gambling users can still play gambling without worrying about KYC and other things that can make them send their details.

We can only hope but we all know that the government wants to make sure that everything is going to comply to their demands, they can bully companies that aren't making trillions of dollars if they want too. Maybe there's some that will not force a KYC but I don't think that if there's a choice, I wouldn't risk it in those places.

[bitterguy28]

~

We can hope that some reputations gambling site will still do that way to give anonymously to their members. Maybe if the casino is out of the government jurisdiction, the casino will not have to follow the regulation from the government, so they can still operate without asking KYC to their members. Hopefully, crypto gambling users can still play gambling without worrying about KYC and other things that can make them send their details.

We can only hope but we all know that the government wants to make sure that everything is going to comply to their demands, they can bully companies that aren't making trillions of dollars if they want too. Maybe there's some that will not force a KYC but I don't think that if there's a choice, I wouldn't risk it in those places.

Many sites that asks for KYC only complying with what governments asking them to do though there are also some of casinos that only use this for their beneficiaries .
they dont even care about the reality of kYC but just to prevent players from claiming their funds.