Why do you want to play on casinos without KYC requirements?

[paxmao]

I was thinking about this question over the weekend and I cannot seem to find legitimate reasons why people would want to play at casinos that do not require KYC verification.

1. KYC requirements reduce money laundering.
2. KYC requirements reduce under age gambling.
3. KYC requirements increase the possibility to hold people to account for their actions. (Exploiting casino systems)
4. KYC requirement reduce scamming
5. KYC requirements can be used to restore accounts after it has been hacked. (Using the documents that were used by the original owner)
6. KYC requirements adhere to government regulations and legitimize a casino.
7. KYC requirements can be used to reduce gambling addiction. (Identifying people that self-excluded or people trying to create new accounts)
8. KYC requirements can be used to enforce regional gambling restrictions.  

Why would you want to avoid being identified, if you gamble legally and if you are not a criminal? Let's discuss the reasons why KYC are not advantageous for the gamblers and casinos?

Ps. I am playing Devil's advocate... if you did not notice it. 

I am not concerned with money laundering in this context. Held people accountable is a problem of the casino as business, not really mine as such. Accounts can be restored by other systems. They do not reduce addiction, just send it somewhere else. Enforcement of local rules is not really my problem, it is the law enforcing authority.

Overall, the only good reason is to reduce tax evasion, which I am not sure is "good" in all cases.

[goldkingcoiner]

Why would you want to avoid being identified, if you gamble legally and if you are not a criminal? Let's discuss the reasons why KYC are not advantageous for the gamblers and casinos?

Privacy.

And also avoiding your personal data and government documents falling into the wrong hands. Any centralized exchange can be hacked, just like Poloniex demonstrated. And so can a DEX. But with a CEX, the problem is that they have files which could be used against you, for example identity theft, and after that comes much worse. I would not recommend it. Imagine waking up one day to discover you are a wanted felon in some foreign country and you owe people money because someone borrowed money with your ID. Really bad situation.

If you absolutely need to trade, use a good DEX.

[MainIbem]

Have you also forgotten the negative side of kyc?
How trusted are you that those gambling site are not selling our identity and what if it's used for theft from their backend what would you do.
There are alternative to restore back account if stolen or hack from the original owner, some casino or gambling site do request for all the transactions hash of the regularly used deposit address and the last time you deposited or withdrawn from their platform this alone gets your account restored.

[KiaKia]

I was thinking about this question over the weekend and I cannot seem to find legitimate reasons why people would want to play at casinos that do not require KYC verification.

1. KYC requirements reduce money laundering.
2. KYC requirements reduce under age gambling.
3. KYC requirements increase the possibility to hold people to account for their actions. (Exploiting casino systems)
4. KYC requirement reduce scamming
5. KYC requirements can be used to restore accounts after it has been hacked. (Using the documents that were used by the original owner)
6. KYC requirements adhere to government regulations and legitimize a casino.
7. KYC requirements can be used to reduce gambling addiction. (Identifying people that self-excluded or people trying to create new accounts)
8. KYC requirements can be used to enforce regional gambling restrictions.  

Why would you want to avoid being identified, if you gamble legally and if you are not a criminal? Let's discuss the reasons why KYC are not advantageous for the gamblers and casinos?

Ps. I am playing Devil's advocate... if you did not notice it. 

1. It's what we've been told but can we trust them? Whatever is written can be clean up by the makers, when the power belongs to centralized government anything is possible.

2. Under age gamblers still exists, it doesn't take too much to grab their papa or mama drivers license to pass any KYC verification and viola, they will start gambling in no time.

3. You are right, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense, if I am criminal, why would I choose to use a casino to make illegal transaction when I am not the owner of the casino? If you are looking for criminals disguising themselves as casino business runners it's always from the inside, probably the owners.

4. KYC can't reduce scamming, who is a customer going to scam on a casino? The house? That's not possible, the only reason why casinos ask for KYC is when the customers win a large amount and they want to withdraw it all or when the customer breaks the rules of the casino.

5. If KYC is already passed on a casino why the need for an hacker to hack such account? If they find their way into the account and they see that the owner already pass KYC they will take advantage of the account in little time and abandon it, so the real owner is free to take it back.

6. Yes it's necessary and I am not against it, the truth is the regulation is to safe people from getting rough handled by the casinos, that's why I don't like using a casino that's not regulated, if a regulated casino do something bad to their customers they can face charges by the law.

7. You are wrong, KYC verification has nothing to do with your gambling addiction, it's either your family and friend helps you or you get a therapy, seek for help somewhere else.

8. KYC verification can be used to enforce regional gambling restrictions, I think this is possible but limited to certain country and that's on the casino to reject every KYC from such region.

[Hamphser]

I was thinking about this question over the weekend and I cannot seem to find legitimate reasons why people would want to play at casinos that do not require KYC verification.

1. KYC requirements reduce money laundering.
2. KYC requirements reduce under age gambling.
3. KYC requirements increase the possibility to hold people to account for their actions. (Exploiting casino systems)
4. KYC requirement reduce scamming
5. KYC requirements can be used to restore accounts after it has been hacked. (Using the documents that were used by the original owner)
6. KYC requirements adhere to government regulations and legitimize a casino.
7. KYC requirements can be used to reduce gambling addiction. (Identifying people that self-excluded or people trying to create new accounts)
8. KYC requirements can be used to enforce regional gambling restrictions.  

Why would you want to avoid being identified, if you gamble legally and if you are not a criminal? Let's discuss the reasons why KYC are not advantageous for the gamblers and casinos?

Ps. I am playing Devil's advocate... if you did not notice it. 

1. I dont care about money laundering, it do just happens not only on gambling platforms.
2. Cant totally stop yet youngsters would really be just simply faking out their age and even sending out their parents ID.
3. Sometimes its been used for scamming their users but of course it would depending on the platform you are dealing with.
4. Scamming who?
5. One of the benefits if trying out to identify the real owner
6. Government would be always having the say or their rules are absolute
7. Self exclusion is a choice
8. In speaking about restriction then it wont really be that applicable on most gambling sites.They would be
blocking regarding on country restrictions.

[Ojima-ojo]

I am not concerned with money laundering in this context. Held people accountable is a problem of the casino as business, not really mine as such. Accounts can be restored by other systems. They do not reduce addiction, just send it somewhere else. Enforcement of local rules is not really my problem, it is the law enforcing authority.

Overall, the only good reason is to reduce tax evasion, which I am not sure is "good" in all cases.

Normally I try as much as possible to avoid that route and if I can go all out without having to give out my personal IDs and other numbers that can be used to trace and tax you on several things is why most of us rather play in online casinos that accept cryptocurrencies which give us the 100% privacy and other security,  although the government may want to exact tax from the citizens through the KYC which will be used to trace citizens income.


So aside from the government, KYC of of no benefit to either the casino or the gambler, so in the end, only the government benefits from the KYC mandatory, no wonder KYC always comes from licensed casinos that are regulatory compliant.

[alani123]

There are plenty of advantages in playing in KYC free casinos and using KYC free services in general.

For one, your money should be immutable and you should be able to use it for your entertainment without any restrictions. If I wanted to go to the theater for instance but was forbidden for having an Arab Surname, then my money holds less value just because I was also asked to provide my name.

We've been asked to identify ourselves in so many places and in so many ways that we've forgotten that the norm is just paying cash for a service you receive. Nothing short of that. Your name being attached to every payment you make isn't a feature that protects you, it's a feature that restricts you. People that want to enjoy maximum freedom with their money do it by keeping it separate from their identity, and it makes perfect sense.

[pixie85]

I was never against KYC verification, I have never been, because I know that I'm not doing anything wrong and if that isn't the case,

You're repeating the words of Klauss Schwab here who said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid of CBDC.

Why do you shut your doors and close your windows? Let people look inside, unless you have something to hide.

I'm against KYC and yes, I have things to hide. We all do! Privacy is our basic right.

[famososMuertos]

...77..,,..
Ps. I am playing Devil's advocate... if you did not notice it.  

It is said in these parts "conchita de mango." -/ I leave it in Spanish for its best translation, but, meaning that you slip, you fall, in a situation that is not how you analyzed it in the first instance, given the play of ideas in the context/-.

KYC is not necessarily relevant for most players, they do it and that's it, hey, it has always existed.
Then, in reality with no KYC something similar happens to what happened with porn in the early 90s on the Internet. Those years, it was embarrassing to put your DBT, where later in your account statements you literally had "Porno hub" publicly, that was solved in many ways, but, that are another story.

Well, the majority of serious players seeks to protect their privacy and is what is really tempting to choose that path, then you protect your information that is always at risk and you guarantee your security.

Then it happens that KYC, unfortunately in my opinion, is applied very poorly, fortunately only in some casinos, who want to take advantage of those "legal grays" to delay withdrawals, or they used AML to ask you not only for your legal information, to your neighbor too (sarcasm).

In short, that is a good reason to opt for casinos that offer no KYC, at least partially that idea currently since reputable crypto casinos are in the idea of doing KYC.

And it is sad to think that because of a few "criminals" the vast majority of players have to be affected by their right to privacy.

[Kakmakr]

It does not matter how you look at it, KYC verification is inevitable. Let's look at how KYC are enforced and when it happens to understand this. Example : A casino will start out small with virtually a few hundred gamblers and they want to stand out from their competition, so they announce that they do not ask for KYC verification.

This goes on for a few years and they gain MANY gamblers, but as they grow... regulators start to notice them and they track them down and confront them with options... "either implement KYC or get shutdown" .... so suddenly you see sites with no KYC requirements, starting to ask for people to verify their identity.

So in conclusion : They start with No KYC requirements and are then forced to implement it.   

[retreat]

For some people they are not comfortable when their identity is known when playing online gambling, especially since there are many cases of hacking targeting online platforms, they are worried that their identity will be hacked and traded online and that threatens their privacy, maybe that is a factor why they prefer to use gambling platform without KYC. But for me personally, I don't really have a problem when my gambling platform asks for KYC, because the gambling platform I use is quite popular and the security is quite good, moreover they have been regulated in several countries so it is quite safe in my opinion.

[danherbias07]

I've never been against KYC especially if it's a service that would be used for a long time like a gambling site. But maybe for those who will just use it for a short amount of time, it will be an issue.
I asked my friends before why they don't want their information leaked out and most of the answers are mostly about their privacy. They don't want to send IDs, passports, or whatever the gambling site is requiring just so they can gamble a bit.
I didn't debate with them because it's going to be a long explanation. I think they should also know what the gambling site will be risking if they don't follow the rules of the country they are in.
I have played only once in a dice site that has no KYC. After that, I just stayed with the reputable ones even though I needed to send some information about myself.
There may be people who like keeping their anonymity but for me, there's a right place for that.

[Outhue]

Money laundering business is at advantage for those running a casino than people using the casino to gamble, it makes no sense that KYC can reduce money laundering in casinos, if I want to launder money I won't choose a casino because its not mine, out of my total control, anyway, many people have already gave good points about KYC and gambling but what I know is that crime and illegal activities are always off the plain site, they happened where you won't look into, if any casino is going to run any illegal activities they will be registered and legalized, this will make the casino the last place to would suspect of any illicit activities.

People don't know that those who have the power to make rules are the ones capable of criminal activities, and they will operate easily without any suspicions.

Now I do believe that KYC is compulsory for different reasons and I don't have problem with that, but privacy is a big concern online, most people don't want to be tracked that's why they value their privacy, I don't blame them because those centralized power are used to doing such things, I hate banks for this.

[len01]

what I understand at the moment is that it all depends on each individual goals, when someone who really cares about their anonymity they will always avoid KYC and refuse to do KYC, but for gamblers who dont really care about anonymity they can do KYC even if its because they have to. like some people who may already really believe in the casino site which has more high trust and find it difficult to accept other casinos, of course they will do KYC just to be able to gamble on the site and there are also people who register at a casino that requires KYC because of work demands. campaign.

still, it all depends on each individual, but I personally choose to do KYC to avoid something happening like what the OP wrote.

[ethereumhunter]

It does not matter how you look at it, KYC verification is inevitable. Let's look at how KYC are enforced and when it happens to understand this. Example : A casino will start out small with virtually a few hundred gamblers and they want to stand out from their competition, so they announce that they do not ask for KYC verification.

This goes on for a few years and they gain MANY gamblers, but as they grow... regulators start to notice them and they track them down and confront them with options... "either implement KYC or get shutdown" .... so suddenly you see sites with no KYC requirements, starting to ask for people to verify their identity.

So in conclusion : They start with No KYC requirements and are then forced to implement it.   

Because regulators noticed casinos, casinos started implementing KYC for their members so everything changed. Those of us who often gamble also have to be aware of this, so we need to prepare the documents if the casino asks us to do KYC at any time. And we also can't do anything when the casino asks us to do KYC. But we as gamblers also have the choice not to use that casino and move to another casino that provides more comfort because gamblers play at that casino to get comfort too.

When we move to another casino for the reason that we don't want to do KYC, the casino will not force us to stay at the casino. The casino gives us the freedom to continue using the casino for gambling or move to another casino.

[Fiatless]

Does this really works? I mean how can this work properly, if a person is asked to pass KYC only after he wins and tries to withdraw his balance. I have never seen a casino sending funds back, because they were transferred from some kind of a "grey" wallet. I have never seen any casino refusing to accept gamblers' funds because the origin of the funds is questionable.

That's true! If the casino is comfortable with people depositing lots of money and will not demand KYC, why would they ask for it after a win and withdrawal request? I know many nations or regulators mandate casinos to enforce KYC policies but some casinos are taking advantage of it. They will use the KYC to fraudulently delay payment and sometimes freeze customer's funds. Doesn't it mean that the funds become tinted only when they are coming out of the casino

It does not matter how you look at it, KYC verification is inevitable. Let's look at how KYC are enforced and when it happens to understand this. Example : A casino will start out small with virtually a few hundred gamblers and they want to stand out from their competition, so they announce that they do not ask for KYC verification.

This goes on for a few years and they gain MANY gamblers, but as they grow... regulators start to notice them and they track them down and confront them with options... "either implement KYC or get shutdown" .... so suddenly you see sites with no KYC requirements, starting to ask for people to verify their identity.

So in conclusion : They start with No KYC requirements and are then forced to implement it.   

Using no KYC as a business strategy to attract customers is not bad. But it is important to give your clients a long time notice before changing the casino policy. You shouldn't assure gamblers that they don't need KYC but when it is time to withdraw a big win, you start asking for KYC. Let everything the gambler needs to know be in your terms of service, there should be no hidden terms.

[Kakmakr]

Does this really works? I mean how can this work properly, if a person is asked to pass KYC only after he wins and tries to withdraw his balance. I have never seen a casino sending funds back, because they were transferred from some kind of a "grey" wallet. I have never seen any casino refusing to accept gamblers' funds because the origin of the funds is questionable.

That's true! If the casino is comfortable with people depositing lots of money and will not demand KYC, why would they ask for it after a win and withdrawal request? I know many nations or regulators mandate casinos to enforce KYC policies but some casinos are taking advantage of it. They will use the KYC to fraudulently delay payment and sometimes freeze customer's funds. Doesn't it mean that the funds become tinted only when they are coming out of the casino

It does not matter how you look at it, KYC verification is inevitable. Let's look at how KYC are enforced and when it happens to understand this. Example : A casino will start out small with virtually a few hundred gamblers and they want to stand out from their competition, so they announce that they do not ask for KYC verification.

This goes on for a few years and they gain MANY gamblers, but as they grow... regulators start to notice them and they track them down and confront them with options... "either implement KYC or get shutdown" .... so suddenly you see sites with no KYC requirements, starting to ask for people to verify their identity.

So in conclusion : They start with No KYC requirements and are then forced to implement it.   

Using no KYC as a business strategy to attract customers is not bad. But it is important to give your clients a long time notice before changing the casino policy. You shouldn't assure gamblers that they don't need KYC but when it is time to withdraw a big win, you start asking for KYC. Let everything the gambler needs to know be in your terms of service, there should be no hidden terms.

You and me both know why some casinos does this... right? You mostly find this happening with "new" or "smaller" casinos, because they do not have the funds to pay out huge wins. So they will ask for KYC verification to delay the payment, so that they can get funds to pay it.

They also hope that they can find something in the KYC documents to deny the payout of the win. We are not dealing with people that are selling Bibles here.... some of them have tainted backgrounds and connections with very shady operations. 

[maydna]

You and me both know why some casinos does this... right? You mostly find this happening with "new" or "smaller" casinos, because they do not have the funds to pay out huge wins. So they will ask for KYC verification to delay the payment, so that they can get funds to pay it.

They also hope that they can find something in the KYC documents to deny the payout of the win. We are not dealing with people that are selling Bibles here.... some of them have tainted backgrounds and connections with very shady operations. 

This is what has been happening all along, where new or smaller casinos are unable to pay out the winnings that gamblers get from gambling. And those casinos will ask gamblers to do KYC to delay their payments.

Everything you say is to reduce the problems that can arise in casinos, but crypto gamblers don't want to do KYC because many crypto gamblers gamble with small amounts of money and don't use crypto to make money. For reasons like this, crypto gamblers don't want to do KYC, especially with the many frauds committed by these shady casinos. Gamblers want to avoid experiencing it.

However, in the future, every gambler who wants to gamble must carry out KYC because there may be many illegal cases occurring, and the government wants to control them. The government does not want to see its regulations misused by irresponsible people, so it tries to apply its regulations to all casinos so that the casinos also apply them to the gamblers in their casinos.

[Latviand]

what I understand at the moment is that it all depends on each individual goals, when someone who really cares about their anonymity they will always avoid KYC and refuse to do KYC, but for gamblers who dont really care about anonymity they can do KYC even if its because they have to. like some people who may already really believe in the casino site which has more high trust and find it difficult to accept other casinos, of course they will do KYC just to be able to gamble on the site and there are also people who register at a casino that requires KYC because of work demands. campaign.

still, it all depends on each individual, but I personally choose to do KYC to avoid something happening like what the OP wrote.

Isn't it weird that they care too much about anonymity though? I get it you're on the Internet but the government and your ISP already knows who you are so how are we going to be that paranoid about our anonymity when there's already people that knows us and there's no person here that's totally off the grid so I don't see why worry about anonymity. I think that the only reason why people want no KYC casinos is because they don't trust anyone and a lot of them are probably money launderers or at least mules of money launderers so they want less flak on them as much as possible. You can't really blame the people who advocate for no KYC casinos as there are scum casinos that will sell your data to a third party which are often malicious in nature.

[CryptSafe]

I was never against KYC verification, I have never been, because I know that I'm not doing anything wrong and if that isn't the case,

You're repeating the words of Klauss Schwab here who said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid of CBDC.

Why do you shut your doors and close your windows? Let people look inside, unless you have something to hide.

I'm against KYC and yes, I have things to hide. We all do! Privacy is our basic right.

Truly privacy is our basic right. If you can shut the door and shut the windows to prevent people from looking in I think your privacy is secured but when you shut the door and open the windows, it makes no sense because people would still peep through the windows  to see for themselves what is happening inside the room. This is the case of third parties and KYC. This is why I detest KYC. Of what point is it doing KYC and what is the guarantee that your details are well protected if the third parties themselves claiming to protect your details suffer hack.