What would be an ideal KYC solution?

[PX-Z]

A money launderer needs to deposit money into casinos, then use as little money as possible and then withdraw it onto the "legal" financial system with frequent withdraws.

I will refrain of speaking of which when you don't have enough data or statistics about this. I know some users shared their experience here the same as you described, so matic they are labeled as money launderer?

If "real gamblers" will used "most" of its deposits, then how about those who used the partial, quarter of their deposits? Also those who used all of their deposits. What should be they called?

The point is why labeling someone as real or not real gambler or what ever you call it just because they don't want to bet their whole deposits, quarter of it or all of it. There is no requirement of being a gambler soon as you gamble, you are a gambler, also for a money launderer. Any launderer can do both or any options mentioned, as long the money were from any crime then send it to gambling sites, its already laundering, whatever he does to that money.

[1715404374]

1715404374

[1715404374]

1715404374

[1715404374]

1715404374

[1715404374]

1715404374

[Wind_FURY]

Hey guys,

With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.

The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents

The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.

What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?

"Balance" is looking for a solution that's impossible with the current system of centralized services, using a decentralized cryptocurrency. You will always be entrusting your coins into the custody of another entity. There will never be a perfect balance in such a system, merely trade-offs, and often times it will be more advantageous the casino because they hold your money.

I believe the only solution that would be advantageous for the user was something like DirectBet's system. No accounts needed, no deposits and withdrawals necessary, everything done through blockchain, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

[jrrsparkles]

Users are okay with the KYC because with the centralized system and government it is impossible to run a casino with no KYC when the regulators wants them to do. So the solution is just keeping it simple not really deep sensitive information shouldn't be collected until they reach certain wagering and withdrawing limits so a normal user can pass through the hurdles with ease.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

  - This is just from my observation, I noticed that other casinos require KYC but they look for a lot besides personal documents, others do not require KYC but when the amount of money released on their gambling platform suddenly asks for KYC, and even though it has been given, they still ask for a video call to confirm if they are the ones on the ID for validation, besides saying that the database record was suddenly erased, are such scenarios not allowed to release the big winnings of a gambler.

Can't just a simple KYC like providing a valid ID or passport would be enough as if there is no hassle for a gambler?

[traderethereum]

Whether you like it or not, we will be asked to do KYC, regardless of the limit we crossed, because every casino can change the limit anytime.
Maybe casinos can now set a $10k or even more, but if the government asks them to lower the limit, the casinos have to comply.
While crypto users like casinos that don't implement KYC, they should also be aware that one day KYC may become a necessity in casinos.
KYC that doesn't use too many details won't be a problem for users.

[aioc]

KYC in Cryptocurrency casinos is something that you cannot avoid because like you said because of the license requirement I'm OK with doing KYC this is an industry practice its a way to safeguard the casino and its users as well, an ideal KYC solution should be a much higher withdrawal threshold so that only whales and those high stakes bettors  and those suspect for money laundering will be asked KYC protecting the majority of gamblers who are small players, of course, gamblers should prefer to be KYCed by reputable casinos

[FatFork]

KYC/AML procedures in crypto casinos are a necessary evil, as they prevent fraudulent activity by scam artists and money launderers. However, many people who play at crypto casinos do not like having to comply with KYC/AML rules because they don't trust online casinos with their personal information and worry about the security of their data. This is completely understandable. People have reservations about divulging information about themselves to online services. And even fewer people trust the security of their data with an online casino. Some people say that KYC is essential for preventing fraud and crime in the space, but that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of examples where institutions have been breached by hackers and the information leaked, and there are also many cases where the data has been used for malicious purposes.

[SirJohnVonSlotty]

This was a fun read, thanks all for the replies. I'm trying to figure out how to move this in to the discussion sub, will do it soon.

I believe the only solution that would be advantageous for the user was something like DirectBet's system. No accounts needed, no deposits and withdrawals necessary, everything done through blockchain, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

I was actually enjoying their story and the whole first page of that thread, but then after I start looking at the most recent replies I saw that they are out of business. I'm not sure how a system like that can function, especially if it's run by a smaller team. But nevertheless, it seemed like an interesting idea.

The points i want to make here are,

3. If you want to withdraw the money you won, then why should a casino know your identity? Isn't KYC because of AML laws? What does winning at the casino have to do with money laundering?

You personally aren't the problem, it's the abusers. The matrix, the KYC matrix isn't triggered on every little thing that happens within the casino. Some companies like Betsson have a 1000+ variable matrix that finds out abusers, some of them trigger on smaller steps, other on larger, it really depends on the users track record with the casino.


 

[Shamm]

Hey guys,

With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.

The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents

The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.

What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?

Efialtis from BTCGosu mentioned that some of the casino managers make exceptions, and I can imagine how that's possible, but I'm curious in what you would like to see there.

Regarding KYC: Their management confirmed with me personally that they would not enforce KYC. (Same old story, we could of course argue about that just like with any curacao licensed crypto casino) - the good news is when I have personal confirmation of such a statement, then I am putting a "No" and if they break their word at any point of time, I would take action. That is how I have always been handling this topic and how I will continue doing it.

we have different ways and different idea but for me it's better to have or to do a KYC if you are a big gamblers it because you have the assurance that your money will safe and have a big chance to withdraw it but the KYC must be simple and that that strict but like me as a small gambler then it's okay to not or to don't asked about kyc as it was a small amount from my pocket and have a small money in withdrawal.

[bittraffic]

we have different ways and different idea but for me it's better to have or to do a KYC if you are a big gamblers it because you have the assurance that your money will safe and have a big chance to withdraw it but the KYC must be simple and that that strict but like me as a small gambler then it's okay to not or to don't asked about kyc as it was a small amount from my pocket and have a small money in withdrawal.

Since they know that highroller will need to submit KYC docs, they'd better be stealth under the radar instead and just gamble right just the border amount where the casino will not require them to fill KYC. That's one way to avoid KYC.

I'm actually not sure how much is what they consider highroller where they mandate to submit KYC? $50K? 

[joeperry]

The user can play without giving KYC as long as they won't trigger the threshold and though the gambling site may require users to do KYC even if they won't hit the threshold if they are showing shady bets or trying to take advantage on the gambling site. You are right about the KYC it was mandatory for gambling site that has a license.

So to make it short, there's always a consequence.

[SirJohnVonSlotty]

I'm actually not sure how much is what they consider highroller where they mandate to submit KYC? $50K? 

From the research that I did most of them range between 1 BTC and 3 BTC, it depends on the casino. Some claim even 4, but those weren't licensed to begin with, so I have no clue.

[Xxmodded]

Personally I don't think bad with KYC in gambling casino because right now have been usual habit submitting KYC every where actually as trader in cryptocurrency. Almost exchange market need to used KYC if want trader, deposit and withdraw fund, I don't think any problem yet with several casino gambling acquire with KYC document.

Some one heavy with KYC procedure can finding with casino gambling not required with KYC for withdrawing, deposit and playing in there gambling site. I found in Bitcointalk tread explaining with all casino trusted gambling site have free playing without submit KYC and some one disagree with KYC can get source link for playing in casino gambling not require with KYC.

[dimonstration]

There’s no way to make another round just to make both party happy at the end. KYC is vital factor for AML because crypto casino is always subjected by a money laundering which the KYC for AML purposes. The only way for a user that didn’t want KYC to become happy with the AML policy is to avoid gambling casino that has ToS stated about the  possible KYC.

There’s a lot of decentralized casino that doesn’t have any threat of possible KYC, the only difference was the popular game provider on both slot and live games is not available on this casino since most games in here are using blockchain to determine the results. 3rd party games usually only available on centralized casino that always subject on KYC. This is the cons on avoiding KYC because we can’t insist our rights to demand KYC on casino that is just following the law.
 

[Dunamisx]

To me i see an ideal solution to kyc related issues as very simple thing to do, if you're a gambler that wouldn't mind going through kyc then try all means to maintain only the ones that requires kyc and make sure you adhere to their regular requirements for it, such will involve verifying your account band occasional check on your profile to know if you had not been bye passing their rules, ass for those who think the whole thing is as a crap of complications to their personal policy and choice then they should always try to avoid gambling sites that requires kyc, just as simple as this.

[coinerer]

It is normal that every centralized casino will ask you for KYC.  Because they set up their physical office and operate the casino, they never want any money laundering or any other illegal activity through their platform, so they always require kyc from the user so that anyone doing any illegal activity can be brought to justice as soon as possible. But if a platform doesn't ask you for KYC and they claim that they are a good centralized casino platform then consider it a fraud cycle so double check before investing there.

I prefer to gamble on casino sites which have to do gambling without kyc. I don't gamble on those casino sites which I see that have to do kyc. But today after your post I got a very good information. Do not gamble on the site. There are different types of casino gambling sites, among them we have to choose the right site.

It is very good if you can gamble on any platform without KYC because gambling platforms often sell their customer's kyc info for various illegal activities if the site is a scam site. So avoiding KYC is a great thing.  But if you want to gamble on a trusted and big casino site then you must do kyc verification on that site.  Because they always provide security to customers and try to prevent all illegal activities . So doing KYC on those sites is no problem

[nakamura12]

I don't think that there's a solution for that. Casinos that ask KYC will always stop gamblers to withdraw their balance until they passed the KYC which it's purpose is entirely about AML. The problem with that is even though a gambler won huge amount and wanted to withdraw and yet they still ask KYC when you can check the gambler's record when that person won in that bet. As far as I noticed, those who open an accusation thread is that the person who won provided an information about the winning bet and yet the casino ask for KYC to withdraw (some cases not get paid until they open a scam accusation).

[goldkingcoiner]

The user can play without giving KYC as long as they won't trigger the threshold and though the gambling site may require users to do KYC even if they won't hit the threshold if they are showing shady bets or trying to take advantage on the gambling site. You are right about the KYC it was mandatory for gambling site that has a license.

So to make it short, there's always a consequence.

To make it a bit longer, of course there is a consequence but the threshold should be marked clearly instead of vaguely. I find that most casinos are desperate when it comes to following regulations and using the KYC to their own benefit.

But these online gambling casinos do not provide any clear cut definitions of when, how and why they do their KYC. So users feel left in the dark and dislike the element of surprise because they thought they would never have to do KYC.

Also, define "shady bets"

[seoincorporation]

The main problem with KYC right now is the locked funds on user deposits... I think casinos should keep the users' money if they fail in the KYC process because that is like stealing their funds. If a user fails in the KYC process then the casino should send the money back, and then block the account. But it's just my point of view.

Another solution could be to request the KYC to let the user make a deposit. That would be fair for all and people will not lose their money with a KYC problem.

[QueenVera]

Truth be told that it is easy for this casinos a d if they have theei full way, they would also prefer to follow suit with all that pleases their esteemed customers and wouldn't want to so anything to trigger their anger.
I know in most cases, tye casinos seem to lure some of their players with a no KYC policy and end up asking for a KYC along the line which is very bad and mostly on withdrawals.
One of the greatest challenges with KYC is the pains of withdrawal decline as a result of KYC after been told of a no KYC policy.
One of tye ways to handle this, is to publicly let your users decide if to get engaged with doing KYC rather than luring them and KYC should be asked on withdrawals above a certain amount and not on every little withdrawal.