The most liquid companies in the gambling industry

[LUCKMCFLY]

<snip>

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

It is likely that Monero would indeed be perfect for providing complete anonymity for players.  However, we must admit that this cryptocurrency is too little widespread in general in the world of cryptocurrency payments compared to Bitcoin and top altcoins.  And too few casinos also use this coin in their payments.  In addition, do not forget that there are also many claims against Monero from US regulatory authorities.  Therefore, casinos are afraid to allow payments using Monero on their platforms.  
In short, this coin is a good option for anonymous payments, but it will not be widely used due to regulatory requirements, that is, due to the opposition of government authorities representing the requirements.

You're right about that, although I can't think of any other Way of doing Things like this With more anonymity, because now IDon't think the Casinos die much because they have an interest in the privacy of the People , Basically what Interests them is that they They continue to register complaints and continue playing on their platforms, there is Nothing to do with complying with the regulations and regulations that the Governments Impose on them , they are Going to continue there , because they are Interested in that, now a casino that is committed to this problem and wants to get out of this quickly, well it Would be the other Option , but how Else could they do it ? The regulations , the KYC, the problem even with the Casinos that do not Accept VPNs is already quite big , I would Bbelieve that things can sometimes be complicated to do, so I Think that when it comes to doing something, you Can think about those Options , that's it there is a lot to talk About , as Long as they do not Have their Business model and it is not Affected I think they will not do much , I think it would be a Matter of waiting to see what Happens.

I write quite a lot and often here on our forum about how KYC when it comes to cryptocurrency payments is evil and is unacceptable in the future.  A person, including a casino player, should not endlessly send his personal data anywhere and to anyone.  And it is unknown why this is being done.  And the requirements for storing this personal data are not met everywhere.  And the more we discuss here that KYC is evil, the more our colleagues on the forum will be inspired by this idea and I hope they will increasingly ignore services with mandatory KYC.  And after some time, such services will discover an outflow of clients precisely because of the refusal of KYC and because of the presence of alternative competitors without the KYC requirement.  

So by discussing this topic we perform a socially useful function.  
At least that's what I think.

I agree with you, when we are talking about this topic, because I have Heard many , However they are nothing, there is no way to do it, by Knowing a Little more about the subject, at least we are seeing that things with the KYC Included with the VPN because it is what we already manage, but the casinos are going to lose parliament, so it is a way for us to be able to do things better, or to defend ourselves better, I am very reticent therefore when we We are looking for ways to defend ourselves in a casino because this helps here , however I know some friends who have entered a casino and things are still quite strong because they do not pay them until they comply with the KYC, and it is a KYC is generally somewhat demanding, of course they are not old casinos, they are casinos that are relatively new, but they demand a lot from them and I don't like that.

For these problems, it is better to be in a physical casino Where there is Nothing to do but show your ID, card, DNI or identification, there are the things that can identify us and the withdrawals are immediate and things must be done Perfectly , I am that not be with that KYC thing.

Now when we are in a casino and they ask us for ntry Identification, something like the brokers know that KYC is not so harsh, there are people who do not like to give their data at all because one has to have their data on the web like anything, and when they discover the things they get into, casinos, exchanges, brokers, things like that, it is a very easy target for criminals , now the criminals also specialize in hacking and things like this, so you have to be careful in all only Sense , casino data is something that can be leaked, as I said before, hacks are very common, so I consider that a casino Should not pass KYC after $2k is withdrawn, that's what I can think of that could be annoying.

[EarnOnVictor]

if a casino refused to pay the winning gambler, they will for sure find ways or loopholes not to release his winnings. especially if the winnings is huge enough to lose their bankroll. this is why bigger casinos have better chance of not screwing large winning because they can afford to give it to their players.

These casinos, not all of them are legits as prescribed, screwing gigantic winnings can only denied when a customer doesn't go according to the rules set, other than implementing strict rules that prohibits gamblers from reaching their peak this season. Gamblers just need to apply wisdom and be extremely careful when dealing with the system, we know how rough the space can be but as they say, surviving is winning. Gambling industries ought to be trusted and reliable because what's coming is better than what's gone already.

No matter the level of wisdom that the gambler seems to apply, a shaddy casino will alwys fine ways to denied him of her the winning if they feels that the gambler has won a substantive amount that could affect their liquidity at some point, this how to know the legit casinos from the scams that promote themselves around.
More, you can easily know a highly liquid casino with the way and manner in which they make their winning payout without any excuses or even attempt to withhold or deny the gambler their winnings.

This issue of gambling scams/cheating could happen to anybody and the most legit casinos could be greedy at a point too, it all depends on the teams involved and the amount won by the bettor at that time. You see, a casino could have been paying the person for years, but at a time, they might turn their back, and I do not even know what to call that. Should we say they are not legit again or what? Because they will continue to pay others and still let them believe they are good, which is why I like to balance my opinion based on investigation and the proof provided on both sides when disputes arise between casinos and their customers and not take a side ignorantly as some would do.

Well, I still blame this on poor regulations. Had it been there are strict regulations, the authorities could have weighed in and made the casinos accountable for their liabilities, and even fined them if need be, especially if further care was not taken after persistent issues and warnings. This alone will make them sit right and do the needful. Every casino should be accountable for winnings and pocket the losses proudly, that's how it should be, and liquidity or not, they are obliged to settle the winners' winnings, they do not just have any excuse to do otherwise. They should have rejected such a bet if they knew they were not liquid enough to take care of the potential winning. However, if they accept the risk, they should be liable. Their inability to pay makes them irresponsible and a scam.

[redsun114]

Now I think that a very promising direction for confirming ownership of some assets, including cryptocurrency, of course, and a way to maximally keep some of your Personal Data secret is the widespread use of ZK technology. 
I would like to point out that many devs in the field of cryptocurrency have now paid attention to this area of ​​business development. 
Here is another example of what the Kadena blockchain devs write about the use of such technologies.

I think that this technology will make it possible, as it develops, to gradually eliminate KYC in that ugly form in the form of sending your personal photographs and scans of your documents to someone unknown and for what purpose.  Of course I would like it to be faster.  But these are complex algorithms and it takes a certain amount of time to finalize all of this for normal mass use.

We won't just send a KYC to any random company or person because we know that it is risky although there is still a risk even if they started to be trusted because they can still change later on and then there is also hacking that can happen. The current process of KYC can still get delays and even if that new KYC system you are talking about had some delays, I'm sure that it will still be improved later on.

It was still new so it's normal for it to still have some flaws. The speed at which I delivered and my KYC gets processed won't really matter to me but as long as I'm sure that it will now be safe. I think it means that no company or individual will hold it anymore. That's great and I love that.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

        -  Honestly, I don't know anything about the casinos mentioned by OP, and like other commenters have said, I'm too lazy to do research on the mentioned casinos, and it looks like the ones he mentioned are land-based casinos in my opinion.

Because I have not seen any crypto gambling with the most liquid in the field we live in today in this industry. Then there must be a source, at least for others to think that what OP is saying is credible.

[danadc]

Now I think that a very promising direction for confirming ownership of some assets, including cryptocurrency, of course, and a way to maximally keep some of your Personal Data secret is the widespread use of ZK technology. 
I would like to point out that many devs in the field of cryptocurrency have now paid attention to this area of ​​business development. 
Here is another example of what the Kadena blockchain devs write about the use of such technologies.

I think that this technology will make it possible, as it develops, to gradually eliminate KYC in that ugly form in the form of sending your personal photographs and scans of your documents to someone unknown and for what purpose.  Of course I would like it to be faster.  But these are complex algorithms and it takes a certain amount of time to finalize all of this for normal mass use.

We won't just send a KYC to any random company or person because we know that it is risky although there is still a risk even if they started to be trusted because they can still change later on and then there is also hacking that can happen. The current process of KYC can still get delays and even if that new KYC system you are talking about had some delays, I'm sure that it will still be improved later on.

It was still new so it's normal for it to still have some flaws. The speed at which I delivered and my KYC gets processed won't really matter to me but as long as I'm sure that it will now be safe. I think it means that no company or individual will hold it anymore. That's great and I love that.

I learned that things with the casinos with the KYC I will only trust the most reliable casinos to leave my KYC, if they are also reliable, they will not have any problem in responding to any adversity and to make any complaints, because I know that it will be fixed that Please answer me, because the casinos that are reliable take great care of their reputation, and they are not going to risk a KYC problem because they start complaining or creating a problem, except if it is about making a withdrawal of 300usd or less, they for that moment I don't believe Let them make a bigger problem, because that is a normal money that can be a withdrawal order, the big casinos do not form KYC problems for that, now it is a new casino, because those are their rules and their questions may be yes.

Therefore, in a new casino the most recommended thing is to be careful and not start inventing things, or things that are untrustworthy, because we are going to have the same deal with them, no, things change.

[EarnOnVictor]

        -  Honestly, I don't know anything about the casinos mentioned by OP, and like other commenters have said, I'm too lazy to do research on the mentioned casinos, and it looks like the ones he mentioned are land-based casinos in my opinion.

Because I have not seen any crypto gambling with the most liquid in the field we live in today in this industry. Then there must be a source, at least for others to think that what OP is saying is credible.

I don't think anyone could be so conversant with the listed casinos by then OP, and if you read it well, some of them dated back to 2000, a year that many online casinos we have now are not in existence. In that year, the internet connection had just been introduced to my country and I do not think that an ordinary person had started using it back then not to talk of people developing their platforms for gambling online.

The OP has stated that he came about the list based on liquidity as guided by a certain Financial Index (Financial Index DATA40: iGaming (iG-D40)). But this is not how the website was spelt, still, it might be the truth as I see it. The OP did not even add a link to make it suspicious as though he has something to sell. I also believe that all these casinos are strong and recognized offline casinos, yet, they should all have their present online even if their strongest base is offline. I just searched for the first one (PhilWeb) and I was able to see their website.

[delfastTions]

........
~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

I write quite a lot and often here on our forum about how KYC when it comes to cryptocurrency payments is evil and is unacceptable in the future.  A person, including a casino player, should not endlessly send his personal data anywhere and to anyone.  And it is unknown why this is being done.  And the requirements for storing this personal data are not met everywhere.  And the more we discuss here that KYC is evil, the more our colleagues on the forum will be inspired by this idea and I hope they will increasingly ignore services with mandatory KYC.  And after some time, such services will discover an outflow of clients precisely because of the refusal of KYC and because of the presence of alternative competitors without the KYC requirement.  

So by discussing this topic we perform a socially useful function.  
At least that's what I think.

I agree with you, when we are talking about this topic, because I have Heard many , However they are nothing, there is no way to do it, by Knowing a Little more about the subject, at least we are seeing that things with the KYC Included with the VPN because it is what we already manage, but the casinos are going to lose parliament, so it is a way for us to be able to do things better, or to defend ourselves better, I am very reticent therefore when we We are looking for ways to defend ourselves in a casino because this helps here , however I know some friends who have entered a casino and things are still quite strong because they do not pay them until they comply with the KYC, and it is a KYC is generally somewhat demanding, of course they are not old casinos, they are casinos that are relatively new, but they demand a lot from them and I don't like that.

For these problems, it is better to be in a physical casino Where there is Nothing to do but show your ID, card, DNI or identification, there are the things that can identify us and the withdrawals are immediate and things must be done Perfectly , I am that not be with that KYC thing.

Now when we are in a casino and they ask us for ntry Identification, something like the brokers know that KYC is not so harsh, there are people who do not like to give their data at all because one has to have their data on the web like anything, and when they discover the things they get into, casinos, exchanges, brokers, things like that, it is a very easy target for criminals , now the criminals also specialize in hacking and things like this, so you have to be careful in all only Sense , casino data is something that can be leaked, as I said before, hacks are very common, so I consider that a casino Should not pass KYC after $2k is withdrawn, that's what I can think of that could be annoying.

By the way, here are my views and reasoning regarding these same $2K.  
In my opinion, this requirement is gradually becoming obsolete, but for some reason no casinos and no regulatory authorities are trying to bring this value into line with global dollar inflation.  This am ount, in my opinion, already seems too small to necessarily be used as a boundary value so that players can freely transfer such amounts of money to their wallets.  In my opinion, this limit should already be set somewhere around $5K, which would really eliminate unnecessary difficulties for many players with this stupid fuss when passing the next verification under the KYC procedure.  It’s even better to set a limit for the amount you can withdraw without additional complications, even $10K.  
Although I certainly understand that the global banking lobby will still not allow a significant reduction in the requirements for control over money transfers.  They are actively demanding this damned KYC from citizens, now even in cryptocurrency paymonts.  And this is generally arrogance and interference in the private lives of citizens.  In this case, blatant interference in the lives of cryptocurrency owners.

[LUCKMCFLY]

........
~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

~snip ~

I write quite a lot and often here on our forum about how KYC when it comes to cryptocurrency payments is evil and is unacceptable in the future.  A person, including a casino player, should not endlessly send his personal data anywhere and to anyone.  And it is unknown why this is being done.  And the requirements for storing this personal data are not met everywhere.  And the more we discuss here that KYC is evil, the more our colleagues on the forum will be inspired by this idea and I hope they will increasingly ignore services with mandatory KYC.  And after some time, such services will discover an outflow of clients precisely because of the refusal of KYC and because of the presence of alternative competitors without the KYC requirement.  

So by discussing this topic we perform a socially useful function.  
At least that's what I think.

I agree with you, when we are talking about this topic, because I have Heard many , However they are nothing, there is no way to do it, by Knowing a Little more about the subject, at least we are seeing that things with the KYC Included with the VPN because it is what we already manage, but the casinos are going to lose parliament, so it is a way for us to be able to do things better, or to defend ourselves better, I am very reticent therefore when we We are looking for ways to defend ourselves in a casino because this helps here , however I know some friends who have entered a casino and things are still quite strong because they do not pay them until they comply with the KYC, and it is a KYC is generally somewhat demanding, of course they are not old casinos, they are casinos that are relatively new, but they demand a lot from them and I don't like that.

For these problems, it is better to be in a physical casino Where there is Nothing to do but show your ID, card, DNI or identification, there are the things that can identify us and the withdrawals are immediate and things must be done Perfectly , I am that not be with that KYC thing.

Now when we are in a casino and they ask us for ntry Identification, something like the brokers know that KYC is not so harsh, there are people who do not like to give their data at all because one has to have their data on the web like anything, and when they discover the things they get into, casinos, exchanges, brokers, things like that, it is a very easy target for criminals , now the criminals also specialize in hacking and things like this, so you have to be careful in all only Sense , casino data is something that can be leaked, as I said before, hacks are very common, so I consider that a casino Should not pass KYC after $2k is withdrawn, that's what I can think of that could be annoying.

By the way, here are my views and reasoning regarding these same $2K.  
In my opinion, this requirement is gradually becoming obsolete, but for some reason no casinos and no regulatory authorities are trying to bring this value into line with global dollar inflation.  This am ount, in my opinion, already seems too small to necessarily be used as a boundary value so that players can freely transfer such amounts of money to their wallets.  In my opinion, this limit should already be set somewhere around $5K, which would really eliminate unnecessary difficulties for many players with this stupid fuss when passing the next verification under the KYC procedure.  It’s even better to set a limit for the amount you can withdraw without additional complications, even $10K.  
Although I certainly understand that the global banking lobby will still not allow a significant reduction in the requirements for control over money transfers.  They are actively demanding this damned KYC from citizens, now even in cryptocurrency paymonts.  And this is generally arrogance and interference in the private lives of citizens.  In this case, blatant interference in the lives of cryptocurrency owners.

Well, personally , I think that things should be at $10k just like they do at the airports, after $10k, if the arguments are made about the origin of funds, for me that is all that should be done, but baado in that the casinos have their own rules, it is up to us to Accept if we want to have our data there and roseguri with the Records and everything, but personally for me things must be very different, I might think that things could be seen differently. In a different way, I have always said that when we are looking for a casino that does many good things, well it is difficult. I might think that if we are not in a casino things can be very difficult, if we want to have a good experience, well We have to go quickly to a casino that is highly reputable and something that focuses on Trust.

The core of all this is that they generate trust, because anyone who deposits, or likes having their money gnawed, does not like improper things being done to them and because of this I say that things will always be focused on doing the best possible for everyone, I can deduce that for me the most important thing in a casino is money, and for me as a player it will always be that, no matter how much one understands a game, or how much one can do, but The important thing about these things is that we manage to do things well, what I can recommend is that, in a casino what we must look for is trust, where to have safe money and here in the forum there are many casinos that are trustworthy, such as sportsbet.io, bitcasino.io, stake.com, duelbits, among others, because they are casinos that have a very good reputation, they are very well accepted in the crypto world, on the financial side and this is the only thing that really matters, because there will be no reason to doubt them, this is something that must be seen.

[delfastTions]

 ~~~~~ snip. ~~~~~~

Well, personally , I think that things should be at $10k just like they do at the airports, after $10k, if the arguments are made about the origin of funds, for me that is all that should be done, but baado in that the casinos have their own rules, it is up to us to Accept if we want to have our data there and roseguri with the Records and everything, but personally for me things must be very different, I might think that things could be seen differently. In a different way, I have always said that when we are looking for a casino that does many good things, well it is difficult. I might think that if we are not in a casino things can be very difficult, if we want to have a good experience, well We have to go quickly to a casino that is highly reputable and something that focuses on Trust.

The core of all this is that they generate trust, because anyone who deposits, or likes having their money gnawed, does not like improper things being done to them and because of this I say that things will always be focused on doing the best possible for everyone, I can deduce that for me the most important thing in a casino is money, and for me as a player it will always be that, no matter how much one understands a game, or how much one can do, but The important thing about these things is that we manage to do things well, what I can recommend is that, in a casino what we must look for is trust, where to have safe money and here in the forum there are many casinos that are trustworthy, such as sportsbet.io, bitcasino.io, stake.com, duelbits, among others, because they are casinos that have a very good reputation, they are very well accepted in the crypto world, on the financial side and this is the only thing that really matters, because there will be no reason to doubt them, this is something that must be seen.

So, while discussing the topic of limits on payouts of winnings to a gambling player, I come to the conclusion that the $2K limit without mandatory KYC is clearly outdated and already requiires an upward revision.  You have listed excellent casinos that have proven themselves well and in general there are few complaints from   players about them, even here in the topics of our forum, which are dedicated specifically to these casinos.  And our forum is perhaps one of the few where the information is quite objective and reliable.  It would be good and correct if at least one of the casinos you listed would finally increase the limit on cryptocurrency transfers without KYC to the level of, well, maybe not $10K, but for starters at least to $5K.  
I understand that this may irritate local regulators, but it would allow anonymous players who actually have quite a lot of savings and cryptocurrencies to play.  
I think that the casino itself, which decided to take such a step, would seriously benefit not only from additional income from rich players, but also from the image of the casino, which is a supporter of cryptocurrency and supports the original purplose of cryptocurrency as a method of anonymous and reliable payments.

[LUCKMCFLY]

~~~~~ snip. ~~~~~~

Well, personally , I think that things should be at $10k just like they do at the airports, after $10k, if the arguments are made about the origin of funds, for me that is all that should be done, but baado in that the casinos have their own rules, it is up to us to Accept if we want to have our data there and roseguri with the Records and everything, but personally for me things must be very different, I might think that things could be seen differently. In a different way, I have always said that when we are looking for a casino that does many good things, well it is difficult. I might think that if we are not in a casino things can be very difficult, if we want to have a good experience, well We have to go quickly to a casino that is highly reputable and something that focuses on Trust.

The core of all this is that they generate trust, because anyone who deposits, or likes having their money gnawed, does not like improper things being done to them and because of this I say that things will always be focused on doing the best possible for everyone, I can deduce that for me the most important thing in a casino is money, and for me as a player it will always be that, no matter how much one understands a game, or how much one can do, but The important thing about these things is that we manage to do things well, what I can recommend is that, in a casino what we must look for is trust, where to have safe money and here in the forum there are many casinos that are trustworthy, such as sportsbet.io, bitcasino.io, stake.com, duelbits, among others, because they are casinos that have a very good reputation, they are very well accepted in the crypto world, on the financial side and this is the only thing that really matters, because there will be no reason to doubt them, this is something that must be seen.

So, while discussing the topic of limits on payouts of winnings to a gambling player, I come to the conclusion that the $2K limit without mandatory KYC is clearly outdated and already requiires an upward revision.  You have listed excellent casinos that have proven themselves well and in general there are few complaints from   players about them, even here in the topics of our forum, which are dedicated specifically to these casinos.  And our forum is perhaps one of the few where the information is quite objective and reliable.  It would be good and correct if at least one of the casinos you listed would finally increase the limit on cryptocurrency transfers without KYC to the level of, well, maybe not $10K, but for starters at least to $5K.  
I understand that this may irritate local regulators, but it would allow anonymous players who actually have quite a lot of savings and cryptocurrencies to play.  
I think that the casino itself, which decided to take such a step, would seriously benefit not only from additional income from rich players, but also from the image of the casino, which is a supporter of cryptocurrency and supports the original purplose of cryptocurrency as a method of anonymous and reliable payments.

Although it seems to me that this is a good figure of $5k, because Calrouno says $2k for the mere fact that it is a figure that seems quite decent, but there are casinos that if you are going to make a withdrawal of $50-100usd then they already ask you the KYC , then these things can be a little more flexible, so when you talk About how to do Things better it may be that that amount can be given to a casino without problems, but I have seen that at any time the casinos prepare for your withdrawal They have to comply with the KYC , I don't know if in the future People will not play as much or become aware of the issue of identification because as I said , Adoption before was a problem  now the problem will be that People will Not want to comply with these requirements, because if the governments come to the Conclusion that those who manipulate crypto will have to pay high Sums of money in Taxes, because no one will want to pay it , at least in my country People will look for a way to evade it , the Government If you have too much money and don't have good Policies , then they obviously Won't Help.

If people in Europe Still think that they have to give the Government money for just using crypto , then things will be very different , it may be that they accept it and say yes to their conditions, but in the case of the majority, maybe they already They won't want this, so we all know what anonymity means, the privacy that no one is aware of how much money they manipulate, because in part if those things are known it is not good, it is also dangerous, I understand that part, so it is better to avoid this type of things so that other types of problems are not triggered later just by using crypto.

From the moment the KYC began to be issued for the excahges and casino, I knew that things were not going in the right direction, however in some Cases they have been able to enter with the regulations at full speed and the people Accept them, and incredible, for That talked about the $10k requirement, but $5k is acceptable.

[Slow death]

I don't know if there is any data regarding how many customers physical casinos have and how many customers online casinos have, but I believe that physical casinos probably don't have the same number of customers that online casinos have, this is due to many reasons. , such as the fact that many people live far from physical casinos and are people who work, so these people who work will not have time to go to physical casinos every day, also physical casinos are most of the time frequented by people with good financial conditions, so people with low financial conditions don't go to physical casinos because they feel embarrassed, so these people with low financial conditions prefer to play in online casinos

and when we look at the great ease that online casinos can provide, then people who do not have the opportunity to go and play in physical casinos will play in online casinos, but when we compare the profits that physical casinos can obtain against the profits that casinos online can get we can see that land-based casinos can move a lot of money and even though they have high operational costs such as salaries, drinks, taxes, water, electricity, infrastructure maintenance, land-based casinos can still make a lot of profit because the people who play in physical casinos they play with many millions of dollars

because in physical casinos people know that the chances of scams are very low, they know the owners of the casino and they know very well that the owner of the physical casino will not run away with the customers' money, because he will easily be arrested, and it would be without It makes sense for a rich physical casino owner to steal little money from customers, so in my opinion what makes physical casinos the ones that make the most money is the fact that physical casinos are more reliable

[Wiwo]

This issue of gambling scams/cheating could happen to anybody and the most legit casinos could be greedy at a point too, it all depends on the teams involved and the amount won by the bettor at that time. You see, a casino could have been paying the person for years, but at a time, they might turn their back, and I do not even know what to call that. Should we say they are not legit again or what? Because they will continue to pay others and still let them believe they are good, which is why I like to balance my opinion based on investigation and the proof provided on both sides when disputes arise between casinos and their customers and not take a side ignorantly as some would do.

In my understanding and believe that,  those casino that hard long term of reputation but suddenly turn bad is as a result of either attack or other for issues,  sometime only one among the team member will betray the company and then pulled an exit on everyone involved.

But many times,  most of the reputable casinos have had a long-term of good reputation without many issues and unless some few ones that hard technical challenges but are back online now,  this is what differentiates legitimacy casinos and scam casinos,  the level of consistency and good reputation iswhatdifferentiatese them from each other.

Well, I still blame this on poor regulations. Had it been there are strict regulations, the authorities could have weighed in and made the casinos accountable for their liabilities, and even fined them if need be, especially if further care was not taken after persistent issues and warnings. This alone will make them sit right and do the needful. Every casino should be accountable for winnings and pocket the losses proudly, that's how it should be, and liquidity or not, they are obliged to settle the winners' winnings, they do not just have any excuse to do otherwise. They should have rejected such a bet if they knew they were not liquid enough to take care of the potential winning. However, if they accept the risk, they should be liable. Their inability to pay makes them irresponsible and a scam.

Yeah, government need to put mechanisms in place to regulate everything that goes on in the ecosystem,  this is very important to the development and safety of all,  but aside from the government,  we as individuals still have the responsibility to guide ourselves and make sure to identify and expose fake casinos,  no matter what their tactics are and how long their choose to play the game.

But also we have to promote those that are meeting up to the standards of things and taking the time to build a good reputation for themselves,  and as much as possible operating in the most consistently accurate ways and manners whereby ttthesatisfactionn comes first before anything.

[tbterryboy]

Although it seems to me that this is a good figure of $5k, because Calrouno says $2k for the mere fact that it is a figure that seems quite decent, but there are casinos that if you are going to make a withdrawal of $50-100usd then they already ask you the KYC , then these things can be a little more flexible, so when you talk About how to do Things better it may be that that amount can be given to a casino without problems, but I have seen that at any time the casinos prepare for your withdrawal They have to comply with the KYC , I don't know if in the future People will not play as much or become aware of the issue of identification because as I said , Adoption before was a problem  now the problem will be that People will Not want to comply with these requirements, because if the governments come to the Conclusion that those who manipulate crypto will have to pay high Sums of money in Taxes, because no one will want to pay it , at least in my country People will look for a way to evade it , the Government If you have too much money and don't have good Policies , then they obviously Won't Help.

If people in Europe Still think that they have to give the Government money for just using crypto , then things will be very different , it may be that they accept it and say yes to their conditions, but in the case of the majority, maybe they already They won't want this, so we all know what anonymity means, the privacy that no one is aware of how much money they manipulate, because in part if those things are known it is not good, it is also dangerous, I understand that part, so it is better to avoid this type of things so that other types of problems are not triggered later just by using crypto.

From the moment the KYC began to be issued for the excahges and casino, I knew that things were not going in the right direction, however in some Cases they have been able to enter with the regulations at full speed and the people Accept them, and incredible, for That talked about the $10k requirement, but $5k is acceptable.

Regulations can't affect those who use non-custodial wallets and decentralized exchange platforms and also avoid KYC-focused casino platforms because your public wallet address that shows how many Bitcoins you have doesn't have a direct link to you which means that the government or the regulators cannot know that you are the owner of that wallet so that they can tax you for it or ask you for money just for using cryptocurrencies.

However, if you use KYC-based platforms and send and receive assets to your KYCed account from your main wallet, it will be revealed that you are the one who has custody of that wallet and then they can link it to you and then tax you for what you own or spend every time.

[Saint-loup]

Liquidity is important for high rollers but it's not the best indicator about the quality of service. Some casinos can have a large liquidity because they've a huge number of customers and not because they have many high rollers playing there for example. And if such companies operate from offshore locations they won't care about being professional and customer friendly but mostly of making profits from their losses.

[EarnOnVictor]

Liquidity is important for high rollers but it's not the best indicator about the quality of service. Some casinos can have a large liquidity because they've a huge number of customers and not because they have many high rollers playing there for example. And if such companies operate from offshore locations they won't care about being professional and customer friendly but mostly of making profits from their losses.

I share in your view, and truly liquidity should not be the yardstick to measure the effectiveness, integrity and reputation of any company. I must also say that I've witnessed this with companies before where the small ones in the industry served me better than the biggest ones. This has to do with the people behind the running of the company and their intention in running the company, and not the money they have. This is why it can't entirely be the gauge for anyone to choose the best casinos. Nonetheless, liquidity is still important all the time, especially for those who are wagering big amounts of money. Wagering such in small casinos could be an issue if you win too big, they could be greedy and that big winning could indeed put them in trouble if they did not manage their casinos well.

Not managing it well means that due to greed, they might accept a wagering risk more than what the casino could afford to bear when the time of payment is reached. This is not news, it is happening, and even if some could afford to pay a very big winning, that might severely affect the payments of the winnings games of other gamblers which makes it risky for them.

Well, with your points, which I so much agree with as well, I think that finding a reasonable conclusion is important. And my conclusion here is that it is not all highly liquid casinos that are bad, so let us find those ones that have been in the business for so long with good track records and reputations. I believe that gamblers can't go wrong doing this.

[iv4n]

Liquidity is important for high rollers but it's not the best indicator about the quality of service. Some casinos can have a large liquidity because they've a huge number of customers and not because they have many high rollers playing there for example. And if such companies operate from offshore locations they won't care about being professional and customer friendly but mostly of making profits from their losses.

If a casino has a lot of players, it should mean that their service is good. Maybe liquidity is not the best indicator of quality but I guess that more money means that the casino can invest in its team and therefore in its site so that they can be even better. And liquidity is important when some unforeseen problems/issues occur, after all, money solves problems, especially if the casino gets hacked, how else do you cover the losses and stay in the business? Good service brings money, and maintaining good service will bring money in the long run and raise liquidity over time.
 

[wallet4bitcoin]

i understand clearly that there are companies in the gambling space that has issues with users. It is important to note that I consider whoever in paying.

I don't ever concern myself with the companies finance, even though I know that it is necessary.

I consider consistency more, cause even though they have issues with liquidity, if they keep their payouts constant, they will be getting results which will translate to success where they can win investors trust and get anonymous investors

[danadc]

Are the Companies that can be more Liquid in the game the ones that have the most investment? Well, it is one of the most disturbing questions because we cannot ask it, is it something that can happen, and do companies that are large because they have many investors work? Really, the largest companies must have good Investors , Casinos are companies that Handle money all the time, and in large quantities, what I believe is that things can be like that , but I don't know, I'm not sure if in reality They do move things that way, because it can be owned by a single owner with enough money to cover every problem.

But in today's companies , Getting ahead with a casino is very Difficult, because it implies having a lot of money, marketing strength and a talent for money to do things with Security, this is something that is seen and noticed, that is why a Company i liquid to take that concept, it will take about 5-6 Years to see its Performance.

[delfastTions]

Although it seems to me that this is a good figure of $5k, because Calrouno says $2k for the mere fact that it is a figure that seems quite decent, but there are casinos that if you are going to make a withdrawal of $50-100usd then they already ask you the KYC , then these things can be a little more flexible, so when you talk About how to do Things better it may be that that amount can be given to a casino without problems, but I have seen that at any time the casinos prepare for your withdrawal They have to comply with the KYC , I don't know if in the future People will not play as much or become aware of the issue of identification because as I said , Adoption before was a problem  now the problem will be that People will Not want to comply with these requirements, because if the governments come to the Conclusion that those who manipulate crypto will have to pay high Sums of money in Taxes, because no one will want to pay it , at least in my country People will look for a way to evade it , the Government If you have too much money and don't have good Policies , then they obviously Won't Help.

If people in Europe Still think that they have to give the Government money for just using crypto , then things will be very different , it may be that they accept it and say yes to their conditions, but in the case of the majority, maybe they already They won't want this, so we all know what anonymity means, the privacy that no one is aware of how much money they manipulate, because in part if those things are known it is not good, it is also dangerous, I understand that part, so it is better to avoid this type of things so that other types of problems are not triggered later just by using crypto.

From the moment the KYC began to be issued for the excahges and casino, I knew that things were not going in the right direction, however in some Cases they have been able to enter with the regulations at full speed and the people Accept them, and incredible, for That talked about the $10k requirement, but $5k is acceptable.

In any case, the limit amount should be several thousand dollars and more than $2 K, of course.  But when you are required to KYC when withdrawing $100, this of course resembles insanity, simply because the amounts required to process this personal information and the cost of its confidential storage are already beginning to be commensurate with such small amounts.  

As for the taxation of cryptocurrencies, it is natural that if governments decide to make taxation large, for example 30%, then naturally no normal person will perceive this positively.  And massive tax evasion to some other jurisdiction will spread everywhere.  And at the same time, jurisdictions with little taxation or no taxation at all will certainly appear somewhere in the world.  
So the government has a lot to think about before introducing brutal and huge taxation on cryptocurrency payments.

[kotajikikox]

i understand clearly that there are companies in the gambling space that has issues with users. It is important to note that I consider whoever in paying.

Issue is part of every business but the problem is if the company is scamming the players or the players cheating the site those are the scenarios in which I believe is valid to tackle.

I don't ever concern myself with the companies finance, even though I know that it is necessary.

why you need to care? do you  become one of the involved here? or a victim or at least has problem ?

I consider consistency more, cause even though they have issues with liquidity, if they keep their payouts constant, they will be getting results which will translate to success where they can win investors trust and get anonymous investors

with the support giving answers and the withdrawal never been an issue? then that is correct a better business deals.