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

[Fivestar4everMVP]

>>>>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.

[Russlenat]

>>>>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.

[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.

Lol indeed! let me assume you are talking ironically. This is the thread I've been most active with for about 2 weeks now, and this is because I am interested in it to observe people's reactions. I wonder why I won't read it carefully but be so active in it.

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.

You are now talking, and if the guy read the content of the post carefully and did not base it on the excerpt, he would know that the word "ignore" was used for the KYC and not for the response to the OP, they are different things. With the attached image, it's obvious that there was a response from FJ proving the postponement of the KYC, so this still doesn't stop the fact that they "ignore completing the KYC." THIS IS WEIRD!

[Fivestar4everMVP]

>>>>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.

Lol indeed! let me assume you are talking ironically. This is the thread I've been most active with for about 2 weeks now, and this is because I am interested in it to observe people's reactions. I wonder why I won't read it carefully but be so active in it.

Well, I wasn't being ironic to be honest, but then, I wasn't also accusing you of any wrong, all I did there was nothing but simple assumptions, I didn't make my text look or pass a feeling of certainty right? Yeah, I was only assuming, trying to point out the possible scenarios to
Russlenat, which I believe he or she already knows, or should know that it's likely, or unlikely, no certainties.

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.

You are now talking, and if the guy read the content of the post carefully and did not base it on the excerpt, he would know that the word "ignore" was used for the KYC and not for the response to the OP, they are different things. With the attached image, it's obvious that there was a response from FJ proving the postponement of the KYC, so this still doesn't stop the fact that they "ignore completing the KYC." THIS IS WEIRD!

Yeah, I did read the comment in question and understood it perfectly from this angle you are talking about, but then, we are all humans right?, and we all will agree that our level of reading and comprehension, as well as reasoning differs.
Nothing is weird, such misunderstandings happen really often amongst users on this forum, and I believe it's not something that is peculiar to just this forum, but also on every online platforms where users can discuss through posts, so let's die this and move on with the discussion proper..

[Kavelj22]

May be you`re right. I hadn`t no one automated verification at least one or two years or even more. But anyway i think that nowadays the only serious KYC is videocall. When the operator ask you some questions, asks to show your documents in different positions, etc. If i get an id with colored photo - i think i can easy enough make fake selfie with it.

No system is without loopholes and all levels of verification can be manipulated even via video call. The purpose of manual verification is to reduce the chances of manipulation but it cannot be eliminated completely. We all know that there are those who provide accounts with accurate identification data and the automated verification system allows account traders to sell accounts safely because the system will not suspect anything when the data is correct.
From the user’s point of view, automated verification procedures are easier and require less waiting time as the process takes only a few minutes. Most gamblers prefer automated KYC (Know Your Customer) verification because it is faster and more convenient than manual verification. Automated verification usually requires a photo ID and proof of address, and this data is processed automatically. Manual verification requires submitting documents in person or by mail, which takes longer and exposes them to the risk of delay or rejection. Therefore, gamblers prefer the speed and convenience that automated verification provides.

Last time i mostly see the choice between videocall and visiting the office. And all of it after sending selfie with id and some text on paper, id, bills, something else. It looks like that the casino makes manual KYC every time, when i KYCed automatically.
I can`t calculate without any information what would be more efficient for the bookie - to buy automated system and sometimes make manual KYC or to pay salary to manual KYC everyone. I think that it is some result sum of the several sums - loses from cheaters, increase/decrease the quantity of gamblers, salary for manual KYC, buying automated KYC system, etc. In some ideal world the result can change due to these factors change, but i don`t think that something change in the casinos until any big problem.

You confirm the same idea in my head. Actually, the only times I have completed KYC verification in an automated way were with exchanges. However, the verification procedures on casinos that I have completed were all manual and took a long time that could last for several days. As for casinos that allow automated verification, they will definitely verify suspicious accounts manually.
From the cases that I read about in the accusations section, solid casino systems can detect suspicious activity on a specific account using algorithms automatically, but they study the case manually to be able to process its details accurately.

Manual identity verification is a balanced approach that integrates with modern technology to provide a safe and comfortable gaming environment. Therefore, from the bookie point of view, it is always important to consider the nature of the offered service and its environment when deciding on the best way to verify identity, as having manual procedures ensures an additional dimension of security and credibility.

[khaled0111]

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.

You might be right that the intention to cheat doesn’t exist and the player didn’t have any advantage over the casino but he is still in breach of the casino's terms of service.
The standard for reputable casinos in case the user fails to pass kyc or refuses to pass it is to let him withdraw his initial deposit and forfeit all winnings then close his account. But this is not an obligation and casinos do it as a gesture of goodwill.

[Russlenat]

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.

You might be right that the intention to cheat doesn’t exist and the player didn’t have any advantage over the casino but he is still in breach of the casino's terms of service.
The standard for reputable casinos in case the user fails to pass kyc or refuses to pass it is to let him withdraw his initial deposit and forfeit all winnings then close his account. But this is not an obligation and casinos do it as a gesture of goodwill.

If we relate this to the OP, this isn’t about failure or refusal to submit KYC. If FJ allowed us to gamble without KYC initially, then what we were doing wasn’t against their terms since they gave us the freedom to gamble from the start. Now, if they require KYC and we comply, if we fail, they can impose whatever is stated in the terms. But for sure, if we are gamblers who gamble with a decent amount of money, even if KYC wasn’t required at the beginning, we are already prepared to submit the necessary documents once asked. So I don’t really see why it’s a big issue when a casino declines a request from a gambler to submit KYC in advance when, eventually, the casino will require it anyway.

[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 believe that there should be an entity under the supervision of the regulators the overlooks these matters.

[Russlenat]

>>>>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.

I believe that there should be an entity under the supervision of the regulators the overlooks these matters.

For sure there is, and we can only discover that once a case is filed, as both parties will seek ways to win. The safest approach here is to gamble at a reputable casino, and in the case of FJ, I think they are reputable.

[Sandra_hakeem]

so there is the answer i get just few minute away
im sorry but i find this ridiculous
from my country kyc is mandatory before betting, and it should be the norm everywhere
but i get it if i win too much they will ask kyc and more shitty documents like cloudbet and others did to me in the past

Ehnnn.... I can't believe my ears and I'm wondering why it's done like that -- maybe they just feel anyone could wanna surpass the KYC level for a malicious practices... So they gotta rely on accountable you can be, in a specified period of time..??
I actually know they aren't bothering anyone for not completing the KYC protocols, but again, i thought you could make a request for it since it's temporarily not compulsory. This is a different story!!

so yeah sorry fortune jack, i will go somewhere else
i really find this behavior weird.

They just lost a user that would have also contributed to the traffic and growth rate. You see, everything in life is already principled so, I believe humans should have a bit leniency too -- i feel the KYCs should be done upon request, unless otherwise ...

[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.

There are too many assumptions here and it will not "hold any water" because assumption will never say the true nature of casinos. In my experience, you will hardly see a casino that will give you your money when you can't get your account verified through KYC. This is cheating as @Russlenat emphasised and is being emboldenedly done because of weak regulations.

I've seen a few companies that returned customers' money back to them when they detected fraud or some mere irregularities but only charged the transaction and inconvenience fees. These are cases that are worse than merely being unable to fulfil the KYC.

I believe that there should be an entity under the supervision of the regulators the overlooks these matters.

No constitution/regulation would want any private establishment to cheat their clients/customers. What is happening still buttresses weak regulations, we should not find any excuse for it.

[stadus]

I believe that there should be an entity under the supervision of the regulators the overlooks these matters.

No constitution/regulation would want any private establishment to cheat their clients/customers. What is happening still buttresses weak regulations, we should not find any excuse for it.

If there’s weak regulation, it gives the casino an advantage to cheat their gamblers, which is not good for us since we are the reason the gambling industry is booming. Regulations vary from country to country, and as we’ve noticed, many gambling operators obtain their licenses from familiar providers because they aren’t as strict, giving them the freedom to implement rules in their favor.

If we want to be more secure when gambling, it would be advisable to gamble at our local casinos. That way, we are familiar with the rules, and if we ever consider taking legal action, it won’t be difficult since the casino operates under the same jurisdiction where we live.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I believe that there should be an entity under the supervision of the regulators the overlooks these matters.

No constitution/regulation would want any private establishment to cheat their clients/customers. What is happening still buttresses weak regulations, we should not find any excuse for it.

If there’s weak regulation, it gives the casino an advantage to cheat their gamblers, which is not good for us since we are the reason the gambling industry is booming. Regulations vary from country to country, and as we’ve noticed, many gambling operators obtain their licenses from familiar providers because they aren’t as strict, giving them the freedom to implement rules in their favor.

If we want to be more secure when gambling, it would be advisable to gamble at our local casinos. That way, we are familiar with the rules, and if we ever consider taking legal action, it won’t be difficult since the casino operates under the same jurisdiction where we live.

This advice is good but does not apply to every countries in the world, as if you ask me, I did say that there are some countries where it's better to gamble on international online gambling casinos than play on a local casino, I won't say that my country "Nigeria" is one of such countries, since there are alot of Nigerian citizens playing on our local casinos, but me personally, I prefer to play on international casinos and for several years since I started, I've never had any issue that is beyond remedy, or lost my money unjustly to any casino aside from those I lose to betting, playing games, or casino that turned into a scam.

As something who chooses to play on an international casino, one thing to make sure of is first..
Only play on well established, and reputable casinos, like Stake for example is well trusted by millions around the world.
And also make sure to read and abide by the rule and regulations of the casino, that is, the terms and conditions, or terms of service( how ever one chooses to put it) of the casino so as to avoid making any mistake that will warrant the casino having issues with you as a player.

[Coin_trader]

If we want to be more secure when gambling, it would be advisable to gamble at our local casinos. That way, we are familiar with the rules, and if we ever consider taking legal action, it won’t be difficult since the casino operates under the same jurisdiction where we live.

I assume that you are talking about local online casino here right? My answer is always a case to case basis depending on your country regulator. Our local gambling regulator(PAGCOR) is not that too strict when it comes to handling disputes of players against online casino, it’s worst than Curacao regulators that typically do action but only have slow progress but at least there’s a progress compared to our regulators that literally doesn’t answer to complaints submit to them.

Local online casino is worst in my country they can ban you for ridiculous reason and ask you level 4 KYC requests just for a mere amount involved. There’s a lot of my friends experience this so I recommend them all to trusted crypto casino.

[goldkingcoiner]

wonder what their reason is for rejecting your request to undergo KYC.

Maybe they need to manually check all the KYC's due to some regulational laws and it would take too much manpower and time to check every single account, so they would rather do only some accounts. Mainly those withdrawing an X amount of money or more?

[Odusko]

Sometimes the thing with cryptocurrency gambling sites is that, ther have high regards for their user's privacy and only on rear situation that they demand to get they players verified via KYC and only on occasion that warrant such as an actions that the site view as illegal or when the trece hold is reached, this is what mostly cover's for their own demand for kyc anything other than that, it is left for the gambler to chose wether to go through kyc verification or not, and the reason why some sure may not allowed advanced kyc demands from the players such as in this case is because the site may likely not ask for verification from you even though you win such a big amount as you aspect, so what I advice you to do is that, since the bookmaker refused you access to kyc verification why not just continue with your playing and when the time reach you worry about that, it may be likely that they will allow you to withdraw or play whatever games on the casino.

[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.

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

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

You might be right that the intention to cheat doesn’t exist and the player didn’t have any advantage over the casino but he is still in breach of the casino's terms of service.
The standard for reputable casinos in case the user fails to pass kyc or refuses to pass it is to let him withdraw his initial deposit and forfeit all winnings then close his account. But this is not an obligation and casinos do it as a gesture of goodwill.

Absolutely well said, exactly same thing I was going to point out to him but completely forgot to reply to the comment the other day, two of my gambling friends have had both their initial deposits and winning seized by the different casinos because of their inability to provide the required or requested document for kyc verification, one of the casinos told my friend that he will be able to withdraw his money when ever he is able to provide the requested documents even if it's after a year or two, while the other casino gave a time limit of six months, and by then, if the dude still can't provide the requested document, he automatically have forfeited both his initial deposit and winnings to the casino - this seems very unfair but it's clearly written in their terms and conditions, and this is why it's absolutely important for gamblers intending to play on a new casino to take time to read the entire terms of the casino and make sure that the rules and policies of the casino is one that they are comfortable with and agree to abide with.

[frenchmika]

If we want to be more secure when gambling, it would be advisable to gamble at our local casinos. That way, we are familiar with the rules, and if we ever consider taking legal action, it won’t be difficult since the casino operates under the same jurisdiction where we live.

I assume that you are talking about local online casino here right? My answer is always a case to case basis depending on your country regulator. Our local gambling regulator(PAGCOR) is not that too strict when it comes to handling disputes of players against online casino, it’s worst than Curacao regulators that typically do action but only have slow progress but at least there’s a progress compared to our regulators that literally doesn’t answer to complaints submit to them.

Local online casino is worst in my country they can ban you for ridiculous reason and ask you level 4 KYC requests just for a mere amount involved. There’s a lot of my friends experience this so I recommend them all to trusted crypto casino.

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 ...

[mak013]

Sometimes the thing with cryptocurrency gambling sites is that, ther have high regards for their user's privacy and only on rear situation that they demand to get they players verified via KYC and only on occasion that warrant such as an actions that the site view as illegal or when the trece hold is reached, this is what mostly cover's for their own demand for kyc anything other than that, it is left for the gambler to chose wether to go through kyc verification or not, and the reason why some sure may not allowed advanced kyc demands from the players such as in this case is because the site may likely not ask for verification from you even though you win such a big amount as you aspect, so what I advice you to do is that, since the bookmaker refused you access to kyc verification why not just continue with your playing and when the time reach you worry about that, it may be likely that they will allow you to withdraw or play whatever games on the casino.

We can`t talk about privacy when we gamble in the casino with KYC. And doesn`t matter when they decide to KYC you. I don`t believe in privacy in the internet and don`t care about KYC but the common point of view is that you can`t share any private data if you want to be unknown. The KYC itself don`t allow such situation.