Why they need a license if bitcon is not money?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Whatever, bitcoin is something valuable that can be measured in its countervalue in fiat money, that's what matters to the authorities.

But it is a cryptocurrency that is nonetheless highly liquid and favored by many reputable institutions. Of course, governments want to take control of both cryptocurrency and gambling companies. But in general, the idea is interesting: if we play for fake money, then why do we need a license?

If you wanted to set up a casino where you could only bet on gold, the same thing would happen, and gold is not legal tender today.

It is like the people who thought that because there was no explicit regulation on bitcoin in their country they were going to get out of the obligation to pay by obtaining a capital gain by selling it. Your government doesn't care, if you buy a dog shit at $100 and sell it for $1,000 the treasury will want to charge you for the $900 difference.

[1715195743]

1715195743

[1715195743]

1715195743

[1715195743]

1715195743

[EarnOnVictor]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

I must say that I am happy to read from you about the fairness between the government's actions and the clamouring for the privacy of people. Most people thought this was wrong before and it was as if I was the only one who supported more regulation for a sane society. Privacy/anonymity as we see it will harbour more evil than good, fine, we want to be on our own and do everything as we like without anyone knowing and questioning, but have we thought about giving those rights to the bad and wicked fellas in that sense? That will make the world to be in grave danger.

The heart of a lot of people are wickedly wicked, so letting their wishes happen in terms of privacy and anonymity will make their bad intention escape undetected and unchallenged and cause irreparable danger in some cases. The government can't fold their arm to allow that to happen and I believe that the responsible world citizen should support the government in this area for the good of all. It's good that we already have cryptocurrency and it has come with its benefits as well which the government cannot take from us anymore. But letting the users of cryptocurrency be accountable is not too much to ask for in my opinion, and whether we like it or not, there would have to be enough stricter regulation in the coming years.

As for the m!xers, I still wish the government could be thorough about this to abolish it entirely. It is a menace in our society and you can see the evil they've used some to perpetrate. This is currently happening even as the government are doing their best to limit the illicit flows and the negative effect on the society.

[kotajikikox]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

Actually I was thinking is what do really the license stands ? because even those licensed casinos that turns scammers seems to be not putting behind bars and the issues was just being forgotten like it is never happened .
so for me either the casino is not licensed as long as it is serving gamblers here? then I see no problem trusting them at all.

[michellee]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

If a business can provide the government with the opportunity to collect taxes, the government will enforce the regulations. The government will ask business owners to carry out KYC on business members. Apart from taxes, the government must also check the flow of funds from the business.

This is to ensure that no one violates the regulations implemented by the government. And now, as crypto gambling grows in popularity, governments are getting curious. The government wants to know how much money there is in this crypto gambling business. That's also what made the government regulate KYC in crypto casinos.

There may be other reasons we don't know because we are not part of that government. Even if we are government members, we can not explain in more detail.

[sompitonov]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

If a business can provide the government with the opportunity to collect taxes, the government will enforce the regulations. The government will ask business owners to carry out KYC on business members. Apart from taxes, the government must also check the flow of funds from the business.

This is to ensure that no one violates the regulations implemented by the government. And now, as crypto gambling grows in popularity, governments are getting curious. The government wants to know how much money there is in this crypto gambling business. That's also what made the government regulate KYC in crypto casinos.

There may be other reasons we don't know because we are not part of that government. Even if we are government members, we can not explain in more detail.

When this has reached a critical mass in dollar terms, then of course the government will become interested in this issue. Another thing is that each country has its own regulation and some do not have clear rules, so this business will either choose where these rules exist and pay taxes, or register in a country where there is no clear regulation and will be at risk of closure. To be honest, I don’t like the 2nd option, but there are also quite a lot of such casinos, but it’s better for them not to scale because if there is a fall, it will be very loud.

If I were asked this question about a license, I would answer that it has the characteristics of money, but is not money. The casino functions very well and works with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it turns out that everything works here like clockwork, except taxes. We come to the conclusion that this needs to be regulated in some special way.

[bitterguy28]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government

we all hates KYC specially when dealing in new casinos but when it comes to our trusted one then we should not feel bad at all because we can generate trust in them that our KYC will be safe.

since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

[joniboini]

we all hates KYC specially when dealing in new casinos but when it comes to our trusted one then we should not feel bad at all because we can generate trust in them that our KYC will be safe.

I think it is better to be cautious and always assume the worst so we're prepared for the worst. There have been many database leaks from famous companies, and while they are not necessarily related to the casino or crypt business, there is enough evidence to doubt how companies store users' data. Especially if they regularly ask for your KYC info even though nothing changed. One of my commonly used platforms just asked for an update on KYC because they claim there is a change in regulation/license that they operate with, but they failed to give me an explanation on that, so I stopped using them.

Whether they have a license or not, being careful with your private data should be mandatory even if you use a platform that's been around for years. Who knows what they do with the info they collect from their customers.

[mak013]

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

Technically it is not money. The stocks and the bonds not money too, the gold is the same. You can`t but bread for BTC, so it is not money. But you can exchange it for the money and you can get profit from it, so you have to pay taxes for profit. It is fair as for me. I don`t like it but it is fair.

[freedomgo]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

You know what, the game in the gambling industry is not about license only. The most important thing to consider is its reputation and license is just to solidify it. Now, let me ask you, would you play to a casino that only have a license but its reputation is not yet refine, or play with a casino with good reputation but does not acquire a license yet?

Me personallly I would not choose between the two as I believe that both factors are very important for a casino to gain trust from gamblers.

Basis formula it is when finding a good casino ... reputation + license... without those two, skip it or you'll regret later.

[rodskee]

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

[arwin100]

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

That's why somehow they need to comply since there business will be affected on regulations set by government if they didn't obey what required them to do. So at the end it will force their clients to submit their KYC since this is what has been asked to them.

Government always have a say on this that's why people should not be surprised if something like requirements like this has been asked especially on their favorite casino since that means they are just following the orders of government since and they want to run a good business. Although some gamblers might really get affected but its up for them to decide if they want to proceed or not.

[michellee]

When this has reached a critical mass in dollar terms, then of course the government will become interested in this issue. Another thing is that each country has its own regulation and some do not have clear rules, so this business will either choose where these rules exist and pay taxes, or register in a country where there is no clear regulation and will be at risk of closure. To be honest, I don’t like the 2nd option, but there are also quite a lot of such casinos, but it’s better for them not to scale because if there is a fall, it will be very loud.

If I were asked this question about a license, I would answer that it has the characteristics of money, but is not money. The casino functions very well and works with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it turns out that everything works here like clockwork, except taxes. We come to the conclusion that this needs to be regulated in some special way.

Like now, Bitcoin has become more famous than it was a few years ago. The government has become increasingly interested in this, and this has been proven by the creation of laws that control crypto users. Many countries have created laws to regulate crypto.

Some governments have also implemented taxes on their citizens who use crypto. This will be further enhanced as crypto becomes more popular in the future. If the government doesn't do it now, they will lose their source of income from crypto.

Later, we will look at other regulations regarding crypto, including Bitcoin. So let's just enjoy this journey while we gamble using crypto

[Dunamisx]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

Actually I was thinking is what do really the license stands ? because even those licensed casinos that turns scammers seems to be not putting behind bars and the issues was just being forgotten like it is never happened .
so for me either the casino is not licensed as long as it is serving gamblers here? then I see no problem trusting them at all.

As I've already pointed out from previous posts, license is not a complete measure to identify a gambling casino as to be a trusted one, we have to make our own research on them and risk using their platform on our own, there are casinos not having license and are operating well and you could as well find some with license registrations and are not to be trusted from what they do, many of their likes have already failed and disappointed many gamblers in the past. 

[FortuneFollower]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

I must say that I am happy to read from you about the fairness between the government's actions and the clamouring for the privacy of people. Most people thought this was wrong before and it was as if I was the only one who supported more regulation for a sane society. Privacy/anonymity as we see it will harbour more evil than good, fine, we want to be on our own and do everything as we like without anyone knowing and questioning, but have we thought about giving those rights to the bad and wicked fellas in that sense? That will make the world to be in grave danger.

The heart of a lot of people are wickedly wicked, so letting their wishes happen in terms of privacy and anonymity will make their bad intention escape undetected and unchallenged and cause irreparable danger in some cases. The government can't fold their arm to allow that to happen and I believe that the responsible world citizen should support the government in this area for the good of all. It's good that we already have cryptocurrency and it has come with its benefits as well which the government cannot take from us anymore. But letting the users of cryptocurrency be accountable is not too much to ask for in my opinion, and whether we like it or not, there would have to be enough stricter regulation in the coming years.

As for the m!xers, I still wish the government could be thorough about this to abolish it entirely. It is a menace in our society and you can see the evil they've used some to perpetrate. This is currently happening even as the government are doing their best to limit the illicit flows and the negative effect on the society.

I agree that some balance is needed between keeping things safe and respecting privacy. Full anonymity might sound good, but it could also cover up bad activities. It's like you're saying, too much freedom without any checks can be dangerous. I've always thought more rules could help make things safer, and it sounds like you're on the same page. Sure, we all love the freedom and benefits that come with cryptocurrency, but making sure everyone plays fair isn't asking too much.
The goal is to keep the bad stuff in check while enjoying the good things crypto brings to our lives.

[pinggoki]

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

Exactly and that's a crazy thing to be honest, you comply or we make you bend to comply, government when it comes to this kind of thing, it's mostly bullying but I can understand why the need for a license when it comes to casinos, the money that's getting in it is too obscene to be ignored by the government and you know how much they love their taxes right? Ain't no way that they're going to let it slip that easy, another thing that's making all of this is the reason that casinos are a good place to start your money laundering operations, it's for the safety of both parties since you will have a rights for illegal searches as a casino while at the same time money laundering won't ever be a problem because they're prevented from using your casino as their laundering hub or whatever they may call it. I don't know about the part that gamblers would be affected because you're not really involved in the business side of things. I guess all that we can do is comply, we're the minority in the world so it's not really our call to be boasting or breaking the law.

[dezoel]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

When cryptocurrency casinos were first introduced, there was no KYC or anything like that, no one had to verify their identity before they could access certain features in a platform such as making large deposits or withdrawals or participating in certain events. You could deposit any amount you wished or withdraw any amount no matter how large, and it would get processed in a matter of minutes. However, over time, due to regulatory pressure, rules such as KYC and AML started popping up. Casinos were asked to acquire licenses to operate.

The licensing part isn't very bad in my opinion, because platforms that are registered with authorities would have a lower possibility of scamming its customers and run away with their funds, which isn't the case with unregistered and unregulated casinos these days.

[red4slash]

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

A casino that wants to be licensed and considered legitimate by the government then indeed they inevitably have to follow what the government regulates and one of them is KYC and actually I don't think it will be a loss for gamblers because in the end it is a choice that can be taken whether to continue to stay at the casino with a note of having to do KYC as one of the conditions of their stay or go looking for a new casino that does not impose KYC.
At this time I think it all depends on ourselves in the end whether we decide to leave or not because the fact is that there are still sites that until now do not require KYC as a condition for gambling so in this case I personally do not feel disadvantaged because in the end it all depends on our own choices.

[Fortify]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

It seems like you don't really have a clue what countries like Curacao are offering and for whatever reason - guessing you lost a lot of money - you are bitter towards them. Gambling is often heavily regulated around the world, in places like the USA or Europe, but as the internet has global reach you will always have some enterprising people who want companies outside the reach of these laws. These small countries often have few sources of income, but allowing companies to virtually base themselves there and acting as a regulator brings in a huge source of income for them. There are some small countries that have better reputations than others at investigating or upholding complaints, but they effectively allow crypto casinos to exist in a roundabout way. That being said, a lot of the huge ones now will often navigate the harder laws in places like the EU.

[nakamura12]

Let's say that bitcoin is not money as we can read on the thread title, this is my opinion or what I think the reason is. I think the reason why casino needs license is because it is a requirement when you want to run a casino and also bitcoin can be sold for fiat. So, if I deposit bitcoin to the casino then it should be like this btc - casino, btc to fiat - your casino account even though you it's bitcoin. Anyway, that's how I think why they need license which is also ti avoid people use their casino as a platform to launder money.

[EarnOnVictor]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

When cryptocurrency casinos were first introduced, there was no KYC or anything like that, no one had to verify their identity before they could access certain features in a platform such as making large deposits or withdrawals or participating in certain events. You could deposit any amount you wished or withdraw any amount no matter how large, and it would get processed in a matter of minutes. However, over time, due to regulatory pressure, rules such as KYC and AML started popping up. Casinos were asked to acquire licenses to operate.

The licensing part isn't very bad in my opinion, because platforms that are registered with authorities would have a lower possibility of scamming its customers and run away with their funds, which isn't the case with unregistered and unregulated casinos these days.

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

However, when they came up with their regulation, they changed the narrative, and crypto on its own can keep the necessary privacy and other characteristics, but once a company or regulated/licenced entity uses it, the same can't happen for the parties involved anymore. This is the rule unless they are not registered in any country, which can make them do as they like and even encourage their customers not to complete KYC. In the absence of that, due process must be followed. This has never stopped the true capability of cryptocurrency itself but just makes those using it more accountable. We should all respect that in this present dispensation.