bookmaker refusing to do KYC in advance - fortune jack btw-

[Coin_trader]

do you have some case with pagcoor ? or any links ?
for me pagcoor as always be perfect
they handle 2 situations for me perfectly and never had any issue to withdraw millions pesos ...

I have a lot of high roller friends still has an open case with them that never answered. Can you elaborate how do you manage to win your case against the casino and what casino involved on your case?

I’m curious and surprised on your method in able to win against casino. Also can you include the nature of your case. Appreciate the reply.

[EarnOnVictor]

>>>>so why ignore a customer who is ready to complete his KYC?

Seriously, are you reading FJ's reply that's attached as a screenshot in the original post?

Dude, they didn't ignore the request. They replied that KYC would be asked after a withdrawal request. You're trying to educate us too much without even understanding the whole story, that's weird.

😂 Lol, lets just assume that while he was reading the op, he missed that part possibly because he felt there isnt any need reading what's on the screenshot shared.
Or maybe he didn't even read the op at all but just read the subject of the thread and decided to respond based on what he understand from the title.

Anyways, on the other hand, some people might also use "ignore" in place of "refuse" or "decline" which if the dude falls in that category of persons, then he is just as right as you are, which means that the misunderstanding is as a result of misconception.
But aside from all of this, he is still right generally speaking, casinos or no casino should not make it mandatory to request kyc verification after a user has a withdrawal request pending approval, it's unethical and some times might cause the player unwarranted stress, most especially when he or she discovers that he or she doesn't have the type of document the casino is asking.

I think the standard here is that if a gambler undergoes KYC after winning a decent amount and fails to pass all the requirements, the casino has no right to withhold the funds that were won since it wasn't illegally earned. In the first place, they allowed the user to gamble without KYC, so they are obliged to honor the winnings. If the account did not pass the requirements, they can close the account, but only after allowing the gambler to withdraw all their money, including the winnings. So there's nothing to worry about if you're gambling at a reputable casino.

But in that situation, the casino itself - let's make a presumption that it's an honest/trustworthy casino - doesn't have a choice because under the rules, if a user doesn't have the proper documents then the casino admins can't give the user his/her money - let's also make the presumption that the casino admins WANT to pay the user.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think that can be contested if there’s a mediator because the casino could also be blamed for allowing a user to gamble without KYC. They might even be penalized by regulators and could risk losing their license if it’s proven they violated the rules. So they can’t scam a user without potentially facing serious consequences. Not all users will just let it go; some might take it to court for proper resolution.

But is there such a rule that requires online casinos to force their users to undergo KYC before they could play in the casino? If there is such a rule, then everyone should be uploading their I.D. to undergo KYC right now, no?

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe there is such a rule. Because many users could still play and withdraw without KYC if the withdrawal is under a particular amount plus if the account isn't doing anything suspicious.

I've not treated the gambling law and its regulation requirement extensively so I wouldn't know that, but what I know for sure is that gambling regulation is still very weak, unlike the financial market regulation. Supposing you directed this question to the financial market, I will gladly say Yes and the companies dare not allow the transaction of a certain amount without regulation or allow the trader to move our money without completing the KYC procedure.

This is obviously not happening in the gambling environment and it means something. That said, @Russlenat is even more silent about the question you raised, the main contention is about the casino postposing it when the customer is willing to complete his KYC, who does that? Don't you think it has some ulterior reasons? Even as underregulated as the casino industry is, it's rare to hear such cases and this is my first ever, it means something awkward.

Plus we need to listen to FortuneJack's side of the issue.

I agree, that we need to hear from FJ for fairness's sake to balance both sides, but at the same time, haven't they responded already? Did they add their reasons for it? That speaks volumes already, they do not have a good reason.

[Wind_FURY]

>>>>so why ignore a customer who is ready to complete his KYC?

Seriously, are you reading FJ's reply that's attached as a screenshot in the original post?

Dude, they didn't ignore the request. They replied that KYC would be asked after a withdrawal request. You're trying to educate us too much without even understanding the whole story, that's weird.

😂 Lol, lets just assume that while he was reading the op, he missed that part possibly because he felt there isnt any need reading what's on the screenshot shared.
Or maybe he didn't even read the op at all but just read the subject of the thread and decided to respond based on what he understand from the title.

Anyways, on the other hand, some people might also use "ignore" in place of "refuse" or "decline" which if the dude falls in that category of persons, then he is just as right as you are, which means that the misunderstanding is as a result of misconception.
But aside from all of this, he is still right generally speaking, casinos or no casino should not make it mandatory to request kyc verification after a user has a withdrawal request pending approval, it's unethical and some times might cause the player unwarranted stress, most especially when he or she discovers that he or she doesn't have the type of document the casino is asking.

I think the standard here is that if a gambler undergoes KYC after winning a decent amount and fails to pass all the requirements, the casino has no right to withhold the funds that were won since it wasn't illegally earned. In the first place, they allowed the user to gamble without KYC, so they are obliged to honor the winnings. If the account did not pass the requirements, they can close the account, but only after allowing the gambler to withdraw all their money, including the winnings. So there's nothing to worry about if you're gambling at a reputable casino.

But in that situation, the casino itself - let's make a presumption that it's an honest/trustworthy casino - doesn't have a choice because under the rules, if a user doesn't have the proper documents then the casino admins can't give the user his/her money - let's also make the presumption that the casino admins WANT to pay the user.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think that can be contested if there’s a mediator because the casino could also be blamed for allowing a user to gamble without KYC. They might even be penalized by regulators and could risk losing their license if it’s proven they violated the rules. So they can’t scam a user without potentially facing serious consequences. Not all users will just let it go; some might take it to court for proper resolution.

But is there such a rule that requires online casinos to force their users to undergo KYC before they could play in the casino? If there is such a rule, then everyone should be uploading their I.D. to undergo KYC right now, no?

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe there is such a rule. Because many users could still play and withdraw without KYC if the withdrawal is under a particular amount plus if the account isn't doing anything suspicious.

I've not treated the gambling law and its regulation requirement extensively so I wouldn't know that, but what I know for sure is that gambling regulation is still very weak, unlike the financial market regulation. Supposing you directed this question to the financial market, I will gladly say Yes and the companies dare not allow the transaction of a certain amount without regulation or allow the trader to move our money without completing the KYC procedure.

This is obviously not happening in the gambling environment and it means something. That said, @Russlenat is even more silent about the question you raised, the main contention is about the casino postposing it when the customer is willing to complete his KYC, who does that? Don't you think it has some ulterior reasons? Even as underregulated as the casino industry is, it's rare to hear such cases and this is my first ever, it means something awkward.

But my point is the casino might be in a very peculiar situation that they found an issue with a user's account, which makes them "bad" with that user and some of the people in the community if they don't give him/her his coins, and which also makes the bad with the regulators if they allow the user to withdraw. I believe that this is a situation that an entity under supervision of the regulator should investigate.

Plus we need to listen to FortuneJack's side of the issue.

I agree, that we need to hear from FJ for fairness's sake to balance both sides, but at the same time, haven't they responded already? Did they add their reasons for it? That speaks volumes already, they do not have a good reason.

Sometimes it's better to keep everything private while the issue is being investigated?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Plus it's truly none of our business. It's between the user, the casino, and the regulator.

[delfastTions]

I consider this normal simply based on the laws of operation of any business.  Including in the gambling industry.  This law clearly tells us that minimizing expenses and maximizing income is what any normal, sane businessman does, and this is obvious and correct.  So, any businessman will reduce expenses that, to some extent, can be considered not entirely necessary or that can simply not be spent.

I beg to disagree with you about this law you quoted my friend, no law states you should minimize cost thereby abandoning your statutory responsibility for standard service to your client/customer. You are only bringing this out of the company's consideration for productivity which will be selfish if they lag in their required responsible service.
.....

But I also disagree with you simply for the reason that the issues of the need or absence of KYC in casinos, which are fully operational in the legal sphere of regulation by laws or rules from local regulators, allow them to be interpreted with some deviations.  And if a business sees that a permissible deviation from the rule of law, which is not a violation of the law, will reduce its costs, then obviously it will take advantage of it.  The example discussed in this topic of a casino refusing to accept documents may very well be such a case.  I would call this situation in legal regulation “permissible deviation of the rule of law.”  A similar situation occurs in almost all areas of legal regulation.

I agree with you that there are permissible deviations in law but certainly disagree with you in the context you used it. The law and regulations in finance are strictly stated and must be adhered to, otherwise, you would be slammed with a fine or worse depending on the offence. What makes casinos delay the KYC or try to play smart about it (just like what you are defending where FJ did not allow a KYC completion for a reason never stated) is because of weak regulation or no regulation at all, period!

You dare not try that in the financial market unless you are not regulated, if you are caught, it's a very big problem. This is why you see those traditional brokers ensuring that you complete your KYC ASAP, and presently, with all my new accounts opened, no broker allowed a single deposit before completing your KYC, that is regulation talking. But with casinos, many perceived some of them as truly regulated but they might not be regulated at all, which is why they can do and undo and get away with it.

You also mentioned the cost as an excuse for delaying the KYC, how defenceless is that defence? If a company is not ready, it MUST wait in a truly regulated environment.

The whole point is that the entire huge army of gamblers is divided into two huge classes or groups. These are players who are ready to provide the casino with their personal data and play 100% legally. And a huge number of players who are passionate about gambling and under no circumstances want or even cannot lose their anonymity. There can be many reasons for this, from government bans by the laws of their country of residence to completely ordinary family reasons. So, you must agree, ignoring this second huge group of players because of their anonymity is simply wrong and even simply impossible. These two prerequisites give rise to these issues with KYC and their implementation or refusal of the casino to implement it.

This is deviating from the discussion, anyone who does not want their data to be known by the casinos should opt for a KYC casino. But this is different from this casino here, it's obviously a KYC casino, so why ignore a customer who is ready to complete his KYC? That is what I still do not know, something that has more undertone than the way you are talking about this. This kind of vice is what causes issues for the customer later when they are either a good player or want to withdrawal big, how convenient is that? Every serious casino/company should be ready for everything possible, so let's stop giving excuses for the lack of preparedness or vices as the case may be.

And such casinos may operate in a "gray" area of ​​​​the law, or in a special jurisdiction where the requirements for personal data are weakened, but they should still work because this is a service in demand by millions of gamblers around the world.

Now you are talking, bro and this takes us back to the beginning of our conversation. If you read some of my first posts, you will realise that I maintained that what FJ did can only be possible when the casino is either unregulated but faking it or they are weakly regulated. This is not an informal setting and all these things you are arguing in favour can't be possible under strict regulation, it's either you are ready or you wait until you are adequate for the casino tasks/requirements and the demands of your customers.

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

[EarnOnVictor]

But my point is the casino might be in a very peculiar situation that they found an issue with a user's account, which makes them "bad" with that user and some of the people in the community if they don't give him/her his coins, and which also makes the bad with the regulators if they allow the user to withdraw. I believe that this is a situation that an entity under supervision of the regulator should investigate.

I don't think any regulation will go through that since the industry is not strongly regulated and it's obvious from what we often witnessed. Besides, what you alleged now is not part of the scope of this discussion because FJ never alleged the guy of any wrongdoing but only relaxingly told him they were postponing a lawful exercise, is that not funny?

Should we say they are not ready for what they collect people's money for?

Sometimes it's better to keep everything private while the issue is being investigated?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Plus it's truly none of our business. It's between the user, the casino, and the regulator.

You are now trying to silence the voice of the people, it's not fair as you undermine the power of a collective voice. If not for this, many cases that have been resolved through this forum might not be possible if we had left it to the customer and the casino alone. And if we should go your way, it's certainly no review or people's opinion should be entertained anymore on the forum, and perhaps on the internet at large.

[Russlenat]

Sometimes it's better to keep everything private while the issue is being investigated?

There was no issue being investigated here; it was just a simple request from the gambler to proceed with an advanced KYC, but FJ refused and instead told the gambler that KYC would only be available or granted after the first withdrawal.

Plus it's truly none of our business. It's between the user, the casino, and the regulator.

It is important because it provides insight into how such requests are treated by a casino. While it may not be a serious matter, some gamblers prefer to complete advance KYC to ensure that their withdrawals will be processed promptly or within the normal processing period.

[mak013]

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

Not every non kyc casinos is illegal, please know this and don't misinform newbies, it's understandable that regulation have turned almost every casino, both crypto casinos, into kyc complaint casinos, but still, we have some casinos that are legitimate and still have not implemented kyc verification for customers, finding such casinos is a bit difficult at the moment, but they exist.

On the other hand, decentralized casinos are also non kyc and they are growing really fast, I usually do advice gamblers who are keen on avoiding kyc complaint casinos to go for, or use decentralized casinos, but they should understand the cons of using such casinos, it's better than searching for a centralized casino that is non kyc, where the gambler also risk making the wrong choice and falling into the hands of scammers.

[delfastTions]

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

Not every non kyc casinos is illegal, please know this and don't misinform newbies, it's understandable that regulation have turned almost every casino, both crypto casinos, into kyc complaint casinos, but still, we have some casinos that are legitimate and still have not implemented kyc verification for customers, finding such casinos is a bit difficult at the moment, but they exist.

On the other hand, decentralized casinos are also non kyc and they are growing really fast, I usually do advice gamblers who are keen on avoiding kyc complaint casinos to go for, or use decentralized casinos, but they should understand the cons of using such casinos, it's better than searching for a centralized casino that is non kyc, where the gambler also risk making the wrong choice and falling into the hands of scammers.

This is exactly the development of such decentralized casinos, which is obviously going at a very good pace compared to centralized casinos, where the gambling market is strictly competitive and divided into spheres of influence. This is just an excellent direction of development so that players who do not want or even simply cannot provide personal data for their personal reasons could use the services of such casinos without problems. And by the way, after some time, legislators first of some countries or offshore jurisdictions, then all the rest will still be forced to legalize the work of decentralized casinos. And there is only one reason for this: casinos that maintain the anonymity of the player are in demand by millions of people in the world. And ignoring this need is simply not just wrong, it is simply impossible. And it is better for the legislature to at least tax such decentralized casinos than to stubbornly demand this very KYC from them, and they will not do it anyway, but will go into the "gray zone" of the legislation and other jurisdictions.  Of course, if in some country the legislators are completely and utterly stupid, they will continue to stupidly demand this KYC everywhere. But nothing will come of it.

[EarnOnVictor]

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

It's point-blank, the decision is ours, I like that. If you want to err, you should err (no-KYC or decentralised casino/sportsbook), but if you want to be truthful and adhere to the standard and law, you should be, just don't mix the two or fake it. I wonder why some casinos and even some gamblers would be deceiving people and themselves respectively, some gamblers do not even know what is right but just do everything irrationally, this can only be the reason why they are defending what is not defendable. As for casinos, some just want the money above preparedness and readiness, that's why a thing like this happens. But some are knowingly doing it for their pecuniary reasons for cheating purposes, this isn't cool.

[mak013]

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

Not every non kyc casinos is illegal, please know this and don't misinform newbies, it's understandable that regulation have turned almost every casino, both crypto casinos, into kyc complaint casinos, but still, we have some casinos that are legitimate and still have not implemented kyc verification for customers, finding such casinos is a bit difficult at the moment, but they exist.

On the other hand, decentralized casinos are also non kyc and they are growing really fast, I usually do advice gamblers who are keen on avoiding kyc complaint casinos to go for, or use decentralized casinos, but they should understand the cons of using such casinos, it's better than searching for a centralized casino that is non kyc, where the gambler also risk making the wrong choice and falling into the hands of scammers.

If you read my post more attentively, you can understand that i`m talking about our future. Today you have an opportunity to play in casino without KYC, but soon you will have a choice between KYC and illegal casino.
As for me we can only try to change the KYC procedure to make it more friendly for gamblers but we have no chances in the struggle against the KYC itself.

[delfastTions]

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

It's point-blank, the decision is ours, I like that. If you want to err, you should err (no-KYC or decentralised casino/sportsbook), but if you want to be truthful and adhere to the standard and law, you should be, just don't mix the two or fake it.
..... .

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

[arwin100]

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

It's point-blank, the decision is ours, I like that. If you want to err, you should err (no-KYC or decentralised casino/sportsbook), but if you want to be truthful and adhere to the standard and law, you should be, just don't mix the two or fake it.
..... .

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

If there's a really a choice which we can choose to gamble on reputable casino without doing KYC then will select that option. But the problem is those casino is now regulated and they are compliant with the law that's why it leave no choice to use but to provide if we want to continue. Although there are casino claiming that they are KYC free platform but its hard to trust them since they didn't have reputation built and everything still questionable since most of them is a new casino which launch their service here.

But I don't think it will came to the point that they ask those what you say since usually what casino asked is basic information about our self. If they ask to much the same as what you have been said I guess I will get disappointed with that and for sure will not do KYC since I feel like we are not safe with them.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

It is impossible. Soon we`ll get exceptions for tax services, after it exception for intelligence services. At the end we`ll get a list of organizations who mustn`t see your data. Today we have a choice to KYC, to play in casino without KYC, or to play in casino with KYC without being KYCed(with risk to lost all your money during the KYC). It is good choice as for me. The problem is that the result would be to KYC or to play in illegal casinos.

Not every non kyc casinos is illegal, please know this and don't misinform newbies, it's understandable that regulation have turned almost every casino, both crypto casinos, into kyc complaint casinos, but still, we have some casinos that are legitimate and still have not implemented kyc verification for customers, finding such casinos is a bit difficult at the moment, but they exist.

On the other hand, decentralized casinos are also non kyc and they are growing really fast, I usually do advice gamblers who are keen on avoiding kyc complaint casinos to go for, or use decentralized casinos, but they should understand the cons of using such casinos, it's better than searching for a centralized casino that is non kyc, where the gambler also risk making the wrong choice and falling into the hands of scammers.

If you read my post more attentively, you can understand that i`m talking about our future. Today you have an opportunity to play in casino without KYC, but soon you will have a choice between KYC and illegal casino.
As for me we can only try to change the KYC procedure to make it more friendly for gamblers but we have no chances in the struggle against the KYC itself.

OK, now I understand what you meant perfectly, and I think I perfectly agree with you, but this is based or if we are focusing on the centralized arm of online gambling casinos, in the future, indeed, there will no longer be option for a legitimate non kyc centralized casino to exist and operate normally like some of them do today, and this is perhaps, because the more crypto adoptions grows, the more everything is becoming more and more regulated, and with regulations comes kyc verification which the government will make mandatory for every services operating either online or offline and deals with any form or kind of money.

But then also, maybe that time will be the beginning of the rise of decentralized casinos, something that have been failing to come to full fruition since inception, by then, alot of gamblers will begin to value and possible shift to decentralized gambling even though it's more expensive there.

[EarnOnVictor]

I consider this normal simply based on the laws of operation of any business.  Including in the gambling industry.  This law clearly tells us that minimizing expenses and maximizing income is what any normal, sane businessman does, and this is obvious and correct.  So, any businessman will reduce expenses that, to some extent, can be considered not entirely necessary or that can simply not be spent.

I beg to disagree with you about this law you quoted my friend, no law states you should minimize cost thereby abandoning your statutory responsibility for standard service to your client/customer. You are only bringing this out of the company's consideration for productivity which will be selfish if they lag in their required responsible service.
.....

But I also disagree with you simply for the reason that the issues of the need or absence of KYC in casinos, which are fully operational in the legal sphere of regulation by laws or rules from local regulators, allow them to be interpreted with some deviations.  And if a business sees that a permissible deviation from the rule of law, which is not a violation of the law, will reduce its costs, then obviously it will take advantage of it.  The example discussed in this topic of a casino refusing to accept documents may very well be such a case.  I would call this situation in legal regulation “permissible deviation of the rule of law.”  A similar situation occurs in almost all areas of legal regulation.

I agree with you that there are permissible deviations in law but certainly disagree with you in the context you used it. The law and regulations in finance are strictly stated and must be adhered to, otherwise, you would be slammed with a fine or worse depending on the offence. What makes casinos delay the KYC or try to play smart about it (just like what you are defending where FJ did not allow a KYC completion for a reason never stated) is because of weak regulation or no regulation at all, period!

You dare not try that in the financial market unless you are not regulated, if you are caught, it's a very big problem. This is why you see those traditional brokers ensuring that you complete your KYC ASAP, and presently, with all my new accounts opened, no broker allowed a single deposit before completing your KYC, that is regulation talking. But with casinos, many perceived some of them as truly regulated but they might not be regulated at all, which is why they can do and undo and get away with it.

You also mentioned the cost as an excuse for delaying the KYC, how defenceless is that defence? If a company is not ready, it MUST wait in a truly regulated environment.

The whole point is that the entire huge army of gamblers is divided into two huge classes or groups. These are players who are ready to provide the casino with their personal data and play 100% legally. And a huge number of players who are passionate about gambling and under no circumstances want or even cannot lose their anonymity. There can be many reasons for this, from government bans by the laws of their country of residence to completely ordinary family reasons. So, you must agree, ignoring this second huge group of players because of their anonymity is simply wrong and even simply impossible. These two prerequisites give rise to these issues with KYC and their implementation or refusal of the casino to implement it.

This is deviating from the discussion, anyone who does not want their data to be known by the casinos should opt for a KYC casino. But this is different from this casino here, it's obviously a KYC casino, so why ignore a customer who is ready to complete his KYC? That is what I still do not know, something that has more undertone than the way you are talking about this. This kind of vice is what causes issues for the customer later when they are either a good player or want to withdrawal big, how convenient is that? Every serious casino/company should be ready for everything possible, so let's stop giving excuses for the lack of preparedness or vices as the case may be.

And such casinos may operate in a "gray" area of ​​​​the law, or in a special jurisdiction where the requirements for personal data are weakened, but they should still work because this is a service in demand by millions of gamblers around the world.

Now you are talking, bro and this takes us back to the beginning of our conversation. If you read some of my first posts, you will realise that I maintained that what FJ did can only be possible when the casino is either unregulated but faking it or they are weakly regulated. This is not an informal setting and all these things you are arguing in favour can't be possible under strict regulation, it's either you are ready or you wait until you are adequate for the casino tasks/requirements and the demands of your customers.

I think differently.

It is not that either you must pass KYC and gamble, or do not gamble at all with payments in cryptocurrency. And I think that, unfortunately, legislators, primarily from the US, of course, have simply not yet reached the obvious idea that any person should have the opportunity to remain anonymous in some matters (for example, as a medical secret) and legislatively establish such an opportunity so that a person could safely play in a casino in anonymous mode and with guarantees of further payment of winnings in case he is very lucky. Let's state that this issue is one of the important ones in the process of further development of public relations in society and, accordingly, legislative regulation.

Don't think differently, do you know why? It's because it is not about the US alone but the world entirely. The US may not want a thing but other countries may want it, who cares? Those countries go by what they want since they are different sovereign states. Take cryptocurrency for example, the US wants it but regulating it while some countries do not want it, so it's a choice.

That's by the way. You actually deviated from the point I raised there, of course, no country would want their citizens/residents to be anonymous, so they will never agree to that. Regardless, are citizens/residents not patronising the no-KYC casinos and the decentralised ones in such countries, even in the US? My point then was that anyone who wouldn't want their data to be known should go for the no-KYC or decentralised casinos, but if you must go for the KYC casino, you must adhere to their KYC rules. I simply can't find any fault in that expression.

[Russlenat]

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in now. We are no longer in the early stages where crypto gambling was fully anonymous. Regulators have become active in requiring casinos to apply for licenses, which already eliminates our chances to gamble anonymously, as casinos are bound to comply with the rules imposed by regulators. Yes, we need privacy, and in that regard, we can trust a reputable casino to keep clients' information private, as they are likely to comply with the regulators. But full anonymity is not going to happen.

[delfastTions]

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in now. We are no longer in the early stages where crypto gambling was fully anonymous. Regulators have become active in requiring casinos to apply for licenses, which already eliminates our chances to gamble anonymously, as casinos are bound to comply with the rules imposed by regulators. Yes, we need privacy, and in that regard, we can trust a reputable casino to keep clients' information private, as they are likely to comply with the regulators. But full anonymity is not going to happen.

Well, I wouldn't trust any casino, even the best and most famous one, in matters of preserving the anonymity of personal data for one obvious reason: any information tends to be stolen by authorized employees or it leaks to the network due to hackers breaking into personal data bases. One of the classic schemes is the theft of a database by an employee who is privileged by the nature of his work to these databases after he was fired by his superiors. This is a classic scenario of revenge of an offended person. And such employees are in almost any organization. And naturally in a casino. And this must be taken into account when you indiscriminately send your personal data to anyone.

[Russlenat]

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in now. We are no longer in the early stages where crypto gambling was fully anonymous. Regulators have become active in requiring casinos to apply for licenses, which already eliminates our chances to gamble anonymously, as casinos are bound to comply with the rules imposed by regulators. Yes, we need privacy, and in that regard, we can trust a reputable casino to keep clients' information private, as they are likely to comply with the regulators. But full anonymity is not going to happen.

Well, I wouldn't trust any casino, even the best and most famous one, in matters of preserving the anonymity of personal data for one obvious reason: any information tends to be stolen by authorized employees or it leaks to the network due to hackers breaking into personal data bases. One of the classic schemes is the theft of a database by an employee who is privileged by the nature of his work to these databases after he was fired by his superiors. This is a classic scenario of revenge of an offended person. And such employees are in almost any organization. And naturally in a casino. And this must be taken into account when you indiscriminately send your personal data to anyone.

So you are saying that you haven't sent any of your information to any casino? If so, then you are gambling without KYC, and are you aware that anytime your account could be compromised, and worse, your funds could be frozen, including your winnings?

I guess there's always a risk when submitting documents for KYC, which is why regulators monitor them and punish them if they violate the law. The same thing applies to banking. Before we can open an account, we are required to submit the necessary documents, and if we do, that means we trust the bank and its regulators to do their job to prevent the bank employees or the bank itself from leaking our personal information. I think it's the same with a casino; a serious penalty applies for that kind of violation as it is a breach of trust.

[Forsyth Jones]

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in now. We are no longer in the early stages where crypto gambling was fully anonymous. Regulators have become active in requiring casinos to apply for licenses, which already eliminates our chances to gamble anonymously, as casinos are bound to comply with the rules imposed by regulators. Yes, we need privacy, and in that regard, we can trust a reputable casino to keep clients' information private, as they are likely to comply with the regulators. But full anonymity is not going to happen.

I remember that the subject of this thread was different, or am I mistaken? Did the OP change the initial subject? Anyway..

If you want more privacy, despite the KYC, you can use a VPN, but check the casino's usage policies to see if it is allowed and if it does not mention anything about VPN, for your greater security, contact the company's support.

[Russlenat]

I am convinced, and I think many BTT users will agree with me, that even an absolutely and unconditionally law-abiding person who wants to gamble may have very good reasons for maintaining anonymity. For example, I would highlight the following reasons: the player wants to hide information about his passion for gambling from the employer, who can potentially find out about his hobby. This can affect both the job itself and the salary. Another reason is to hide the passion for gambling from close relatives, sometimes even from such as a wife or children. But mainly from more distant relatives. Finally, the need to play anonymously arises in cases where this passion of the player for the game contradicts traditions and norms of behavior, and sometimes even the rule of law, especially in countries where it is traditionally prohibited. These are just a few reasons for the need to maintain anonymity.
In particular, it is necessary to take into account that it is cryptocurrencies that allow for the anonymity of payments. And they allow you to maintain it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in now. We are no longer in the early stages where crypto gambling was fully anonymous. Regulators have become active in requiring casinos to apply for licenses, which already eliminates our chances to gamble anonymously, as casinos are bound to comply with the rules imposed by regulators. Yes, we need privacy, and in that regard, we can trust a reputable casino to keep clients' information private, as they are likely to comply with the regulators. But full anonymity is not going to happen.

I remember that the subject of this thread was different, or am I mistaken? Did the OP change the initial subject? Anyway..

I am very active in replying to this thread, so I can say that the thread title hasn't changed since I started posting here.

If you want more privacy, despite the KYC, you can use a VPN, but check the casino's usage policies to see if it is allowed and if it does not mention anything about VPN, for your greater security, contact the company's support.

Most casinos do allow VPNs as a way to keep accounts private, but when it's used to bypass restrictions set by the casino, as advised by regulators, there's no argument against it. It's clear that such actions are against the terms of service, and our accounts could be compromised at any time. Therefore, we should understand the risks, not just the experience, so we can balance things out properly.