I hope @holydarkness could drop here and give his own opinion he is involved in a lot of scam accusations and his opinion and findings are respected, it's interesting to read what will be his opinion about this matter.
This discussion could have been better if we had a poll so that even those who don't want to be part of this discussion could give their approval or disapproval.
Thank you for inviting me and bringing this to my attention. I tried to address to this thread and the invitation the second it came to my awareness, but I am currently swamped and it took me up to today to finally give this thread a thorough read... well, "thorough", given it seems the thread used to have way more [spamming] posts and it got deleted. I am not reading the archived version, as it apparently will be at least
another page long. Perhaps later, when I have more time at hand.
With a warning that it'll be a long post, and that I am refraining from linking anything being referred in my post on behalf of keeping eye health of whoever read my post thoroughly [so they don't have to read another long threads], we are moving to the subject...
Based on
this post and the two responses, I realized another opportunity to actually contribute to the community, and not just my buddies.
A group of players should get together to create a list of "rights" they demand, and issue a certification for those casinos that agree to follow them. Eventually, hopefully, increased success of those sites displaying the certification would lead to others sites following.
Not properly worded, this list of rights will easily backfire and get weaponized by the players.
Coming from someone who haunt the scam accusations board on daily basis, situation with casinos are not always occured because the casino is the bad actor. Though on many cases casinos are at fault and being difficult, a big portion of the scam accusations board actually filled by complaints from a cheating players who try to be sneaky and cried and asked for help because their abusive behavior were being detected. Some others are made by users with room temperature as their IQ. In Celsius.
For example, the very thread that prompt you to create this thread, it's about a player [the one who accuses the casino] who apparently is delusional enough [someone believe he fell a lot during his infancy] that he think the world revolves around him and whatever he wants, everyone must provide. Another case have a player who create a nuclear weapon using his disability, trying to wring casinos their money with his mental condition. Another one literally spammed the board and terrorize third-party arbitrator because a casino utilize two different format of provably fair and apparently have a founder whose father has a criminal record, amongst other mundane and baseless accusations.
That's three that easily coming off the top of my head, just to give a better understanding that at a casino industry, the casinos are not always the bad actor, there are a lot of people with malicious intent and agenda who try to milk a casino, and thus, if such a list of rights are about to be made, it should be crafted very carefully to prevent abuse and backfire, as well as to [surprisingly enough] protect the casino from the malicious players.
May I know what kind of list of rights you currently have in your mind? Just a rough draft, does not have to be the actual points that'll be realized on the final list, aside from the one below [that will have its own dissection] so I can give my opinion on how feasible it will be to compile and how likely it'll be to stay on a neutral ground.
Obviously, a right cannot be something that harms the site, such as "A player wins if ..." but instead something like "The site lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process."
Such a list of rights would not harm the legit sites in any way. Who wants to champion this?
In theory, this is doable, having a clause in the list-of-rights that said the casino clearly lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process, thus implying that the player's future on that casino is somewhat guaranteed as long as they followed the rule. But... the condition itself is ever changing. Their ToS is updated from time to time, so unless you have a way to automatically detect an update on a casino ToS, it'll be a very heavy workload to check them from time to time.
Of course you can ask the casino to notify you when they made a change on their ToS, but will we be able to notify the players that casino A has updated their condition [that'll enable them to freeze assets], where the updated condition will specifically affect players who are this, this, and this?
To give a better image of what I'm talking about, one of the point that easily changed from time to time is restricted countries. For instance, Poland was not part of casino A's restricted country as per March 2024, and thus a player residing in Poland are allowed to play and are not breaching the agreed ToS, and the clause of list-of-rights saying as above is true. On April 2024, Poland become a restricted country on Casino A, which make the said player now in a breach of ToS, and according the the list-of-rights, Casino A are still true to the clause; they freeze the player's assets because the player played from restricted country.
In practice, they'll give a pop-up message on their page, or an email blast, informing every registered player that they've updated their ToS, and players who get affected by the updates are allowed to continue playing and withdraw all of their assets up to 31 March 2024. But there are instances where the pop-up didn't appear or the player didn't get the message. Who is at fault here and who will be held liable if the casino refuses to return player's fund?
Another factor worth weighting in, from time to time, player's assets got frozen, or part of it got seized, bets got cancelled, or other situations that caused a player to suffer a financial damage, some of it are due to a cause that is out of casino's will. Like a pending KYC verification [that took months] or the sportsbook provider's decision to cancel the bets. Can the casino be considered breaching the clause they agreed on the list-of-rights? Because, theoretically, they violated the clause by having their player's assets frozen, or an account became inaccessible for months, or some bets being voided, all of them are [arguably] a breach from the list-of-rights, since they put a player in a situation outside of the list of their conditions that allows them to freeze assets, yet they can't do much as [for instance] the bets are voided by the sportsbook's decision, not theirs. Will it be fair for the casino to bear the burden of blame and pay the voided bets out of their own pocket just to stay true to the list-of-rights?
Another interesting case that might worth considering, that there are factors outside of casino's control that made them unable to fulfill the clause [though it's clearly not the case of freezing assets, but still related to a condition where the player suffers financial loss] there was a player who deposited through FTX's wallet, was asked to fulfill KYC as part of AML/ATF act at one point and he decided to wait for a while, with a reason that he want to use that frozen assets as his emergency fund [if he performs the SoW level KYC and got the fund liquidated, he afraid he'll use it right away, so he used the opportunity to have an accidental emergency fund].
One year later, he performed the SoW level KYC, got his fund unfrozen and being sent to the originating address [sometimes casino send questionable funds back to the originating address instead of the address their player's asked as a second layer of security measure against AML], where FTX already collapsed and the wallet is no longer accessible. Effectively, the fund are sent to limbo.
In one perspective, the player is at fault because he did not perform KYC right away, which raised casino's suspicion and prompted them to perform the second layer of security [sending to the originating address], yet at the same time [as many argued on that case] the casino should ask whether the wallet is still accessible or not prior to sending, yet again, if the casino did so and the player said he no longer has access to the wallet, they violated their AML policy by facilitating a way for someone to launder money.
Under this situation, where do the list-of-rights stand?
And with those instances in hand, how far will the issuer of list-of-rights be held accountable and/or an accomplice to a case? They're the one issuing a certification. Disregarding the true nature of their case [remember, some players are coming with bad intent and malicious agenda], players may argue that they suffer a financial loss and become a victim to a casino because they trusted the certification given by the list-of-rights. As such, will the issuer of certification be held accountable to a certain degree of the damage? How big is their influence and wiggle room to determine who violated what?
