What's even the point of licenses anymore?

[AmoreJaz]

It seems to me that most people who live in cities are already modern day slaves, because they are required to pay taxes on absolutely everything. They even pay taxes on the food they buy. They have to pay for water, transportation, heating, and everything else. And soon, I think we will be paying for air, everyone who lives in the city. Therefore, this is a form of modern slavery.

Not actually because these people wanted to be controlled or subjected to regulations to the extent, but a city lifestyle is such that is streamlined towards total adherence to government regulations because he will easily tracked if found not in compliance, that is why they  seem to be stupid by the way of being attentive and abiding to government regulations, unlike the way we can easily go away with some in a remote area in some countries.

We can say, there are some compromises when you are in a city. So it depends on you if you want to sacrifice some parts of your life in exchange of that kind of lifestyle. Because the reality is - the work is usually found in the city. And when you go to the countryside, you know very well the jobs that are only available to you. So yes, there will be prices to pay when you decide to stay in the city.

In theory, licensing is a confirmation that a platform meets the requirements for legally conducting a particular activity-in this case, providing gambling services. I assume that to obtain a license, one must comply with a specific set of rules to ensure financial security and protect users’ rights.
The only question is: Are licenses actually issued this way, or is this simply a process for generating profit by issuing nominal licenses?

Let us put it this way, some jurisdictions require certain licenses for them to operate in their area. Hence, they still need acquire such license in order to run their business. Of course, getting a license requires fee and certain docs to comply with. That's part of any licensing authority. And with such license, the customers/players are somehow protected as well if anything goes wrong because they are bounded by the terms and conditions of the site.

[Royal Cap]

=
Not actually because these people wanted to be controlled or subjected to regulations to the extent, but a city lifestyle is such that is streamlined towards total adherence to government regulations because he will easily tracked if found not in compliance, that is why they  seem to be stupid by the way of being attentive and abiding to government regulations, unlike the way we can easily go away with some in a remote area in some countries.

It is true that rules are more effectively enforced in cities but it is not just surveillance that makes people obey the rules. Because in big cities millions of people living together need some rules otherwise it would be difficult to manage transportation or public services. While many things can be avoided in remote areas, doing the same thing in a city affects many more people. As I currently live in our country's capital, I can relate to this.  So would say it is important to have a balance between control and discipline.

[tread93]

Curacao used to be the main gambling license online casinos used to operate under. Their licensing structure was very shady. They had licensed 4 main title holders long ago and in turn these were issuing sub-licensed to anyone for very cheap.

Fast forward to more recent years, Curacao tries to overhaul their entire licensing process. Now entities who want a Curacao license must open a corporation there and apply for a much more expensive license that will be issued directly under the local state authorities.

Sounds much better than before as the path to seek liability would be much more direct. But there are several practical issues here. For instance, although Curacao's new licensing scheme is in full effect now, there's still no alternative resolution path that casinos under this licensing scheme have to follow. If anyone wants to go after them to find justice, the only way is local courts.

However, it has become apparent that even with these changes, online casinos will simply chainge their credentials and license, to start operating under a Comoros license to avoid judgments against them.

I can share a couple of very characteristic examples that involve casinos we're all familiar with:
1. https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/bc-game-curacao-bankruptcy/
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534261.0


So what's even the point of a license anymore? Soon there won't be any more obscure island nations left to issue title licenses that mean nothing further than their name. So what's going to be the next stem of casinos? Invent their own licensing authority in an obscure island? Who knows.
But the point is, why are casinos even bothering to pay for the issuance of these licenses when we all know they mean nothing? Might as well just go without a license. Why not?

That does make it difficult to hold any individual entity accountable if they can just go and change their name for instance and get a new license. I think maybe the whole point is to look legit but perhaps Curacao hasa handshake or cash under the table arrangement with all of the casinos and they get paid off to make it easier to not have to be held accountable? Sounds crazy but honestly its not too far fetched…

[Fortify]

Curacao used to be the main gambling license online casinos used to operate under. Their licensing structure was very shady. They had licensed 4 main title holders long ago and in turn these were issuing sub-licensed to anyone for very cheap.

Fast forward to more recent years, Curacao tries to overhaul their entire licensing process. Now entities who want a Curacao license must open a corporation there and apply for a much more expensive license that will be issued directly under the local state authorities.

Sounds much better than before as the path to seek liability would be much more direct. But there are several practical issues here. For instance, although Curacao's new licensing scheme is in full effect now, there's still no alternative resolution path that casinos under this licensing scheme have to follow. If anyone wants to go after them to find justice, the only way is local courts.

However, it has become apparent that even with these changes, online casinos will simply chainge their credentials and license, to start operating under a Comoros license to avoid judgments against them.

So what's even the point of a license anymore? Soon there won't be any more obscure island nations left to issue title licenses that mean nothing further than their name. So what's going to be the next stem of casinos? Invent their own licensing authority in an obscure island? Who knows.
But the point is, why are casinos even bothering to pay for the issuance of these licenses when we all know they mean nothing? Might as well just go without a license. Why not?

Buying a license, as long as it can be reasonably verified with the regulator who issues it, is the bare minimum that a company could and should be doing these days to build minimal trust in the market. Not because it means any player will be protected, because it rarely means that, but because there is a "buy in" fee of some kind which means that they're going to be out at least a few thousand if they throw it away on a scam. Most scammers have limited funds or won't go through all the more elaborate steps that would be required to make a casino look more legitimate to secure higher rollers. It's like having support staff or a marketing campaign, that single signal alone is not a sign of trust but when merged together with all the other aspects it helps build a picture that they're less likely to disappear overnight. This is obviously not bulletproof though and there have been recent scams where extra effort like this was put into it.

[justdimin]

Most casinos would probably prefer not to require KYC since it can drive away players who value privacy and freedom. But KYC is usually connected to licensing, anti-money-laundering rules, and government regulation, so casinos often have no choice but to implement it.

I'm not sure that's true. Yes, KYC scare people away, but if you are a losing player, you can enter Elon Musk's name and address as basic details and the casino doesn't care. The problem starts when you are winning or outplaying them, which can be by betting on rigged games, taking advantage of bonuses and promotions, etc. Basically anything that leads to a positive P&L consistently.

Money laundering is a serious concern, though, so they implement wager requirements, which is usually 1x, to make sure money cannot be laundered by just depositing and withdrawing with none or insignificant gameplay.

The timing can vary. Some casinos ask for verification before you can play, while others allow you to deposit and gamble first, then request KYC later during withdrawal or when something triggers a review. But allowing someone to play without KYC at the beginning does not mean the requirement no longer exists.

The reality is that casinos use this as a tool more than anything. They can trouble you with asking for different documents because they don't want smart people on their website. I don't remember the last time someone who was losing money was asked for KYC.

[Alphakilo]

Curacao used to be the main gambling license online casinos used to operate under. Their licensing structure was very shady. They had licensed 4 main title holders long ago and in turn these were issuing sub-licensed to anyone for very cheap.

Fast forward to more recent years, Curacao tries to overhaul their entire licensing process. Now entities who want a Curacao license must open a corporation there and apply for a much more expensive license that will be issued directly under the local state authorities.

Sounds much better than before as the path to seek liability would be much more direct. But there are several practical issues here. For instance, although Curacao's new licensing scheme is in full effect now, there's still no alternative resolution path that casinos under this licensing scheme have to follow. If anyone wants to go after them to find justice, the only way is local courts.

However, it has become apparent that even with these changes, online casinos will simply chainge their credentials and license, to start operating under a Comoros license to avoid judgments against them.

I can share a couple of very characteristic examples that involve casinos we're all familiar with:
1. https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/bc-game-curacao-bankruptcy/
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534261.0


So what's even the point of a license anymore? Soon there won't be any more obscure island nations left to issue title licenses that mean nothing further than their name. So what's going to be the next stem of casinos? Invent their own licensing authority in an obscure island? Who knows.
But the point is, why are casinos even bothering to pay for the issuance of these licenses when we all know they mean nothing? Might as well just go without a license. Why not?

That does make it difficult to hold any individual entity accountable if they can just go and change their name for instance and get a new license. I think maybe the whole point is to look legit but perhaps Curacao hasa handshake or cash under the table arrangement with all of the casinos and they get paid off to make it easier to not have to be held accountable? Sounds crazy but honestly its not too far fetched…

It's now Anjouan license, Tobique, Costa Rica of which most of these gambling sites now migrate to which is quite cheaper than Curacao. The essence of licences anyways from my perspective is just to enforce bureaucracy and deter scammers and money laundering too from taking hold of victims funds or using such for neferous acts. These licenses only have much power in local courts and that's why I agree, why the need for licences at all?

[ultrloa]

Most casinos would probably prefer not to require KYC since it can drive away players who value privacy and freedom. But KYC is usually connected to licensing, anti-money-laundering rules, and government regulation, so casinos often have no choice but to implement it.

I'm not sure that's true. Yes, KYC scare people away, but if you are a losing player, you can enter Elon Musk's name and address as basic details and the casino doesn't care. The problem starts when you are winning or outplaying them, which can be by betting on rigged games, taking advantage of bonuses and promotions, etc. Basically anything that leads to a positive P&L consistently.

Money laundering is a serious concern, though, so they implement wager requirements, which is usually 1x, to make sure money cannot be laundered by just depositing and withdrawing with none or insignificant gameplay.

Maybe they don't care much about those things, since you are the one solely know if you put random details on your account upon registration. But you or players must understand the real risk about this action since by the time KYC will be asked for sure that this will be total disaster on their end.

Also since regulation or licensing became norm now, people should expect those KYC. Since legitimate casinos don't have any choice but to comply and this is normal part of the regulation happening.

Only scam casinos will do those controlling of pay outs you have said, so in that case better gamble on well known casino to avoid experiencing those kind of issues. I somehow understand that counter actions done like putting 1x wager requirement on deposit done by gamblers. Since if they won't implement such requirement their casino will became primary tool for fraudster to launder their illegal money and this is so bad on the side of the casino.

[DrBeer]

In theory, licensing is a confirmation that a platform meets the requirements for legally conducting a particular activity-in this case, providing gambling services. I assume that to obtain a license, one must comply with a specific set of rules to ensure financial security and protect users’ rights.
The only question is: Are licenses actually issued this way, or is this simply a process for generating profit by issuing nominal licenses?

I have my own theory about this. License providers that are less strict with monitoring probably receive more applications because casinos want more freedom in how they operate.

I’m not saying those regulators are doing nothing. It may simply be that they don’t receive many complaints. A lot of people who choose casinos with little or no KYC already know the risks. They are there because they want more privacy and fewer restrictions, so many of them may not bother complaining when something goes wrong.

Serious gamblers are different. If someone is betting hundreds of thousands, I doubt they would choose a small casino only because it doesn’t require KYC. They would probably prefer a well-established and strongly regulated platform, because security and the ability to recover their money matter more than anonymity.

So maybe the market naturally separates itself. Smaller players who value freedom take more risk, while high-stakes gamblers usually choose stronger regulation and better protection.

Yes, your theory has merit
This could be described as the government "shifting responsibility" onto certain private entities. The government receives additional revenue, essentially absolves itself of responsibility, and shifts all responsibility for what happens next onto the private company. And this raises one question: to what extent will this private company be able to fulfill its obligations if any problems arise?

[Alex077]

Curacao used to be the main gambling license online casinos used to operate under. Their licensing structure was very shady. They had licensed 4 main title holders long ago and in turn these were issuing sub-licensed to anyone for very cheap.

Fast forward to more recent years, Curacao tries to overhaul their entire licensing process. Now entities who want a Curacao license must open a corporation there and apply for a much more expensive license that will be issued directly under the local state authorities...

Buying a license, as long as it can be reasonably verified with the regulator who issues it, is the bare minimum that a company could and should be doing these days to build minimal trust in the market. Not because it means any player will be protected, because it rarely means that, but because there is a "buy in" fee of some kind which means that they're going to be out at least a few thousand if they throw it away on a scam...

I'd say that, in most cases, a license by itself isn't really a guarantee that a casino is trustworthy, but I wouldn't completely dismiss its value either.   I see a license  only as more of a first filter when choosing a casino rather than the final deciding factor.
After that, though, I always look at other factors. How long has the casino been around?  How do the casino representatives interact with gamblers on Bitcointalk? How quickly do they resolve disputes? And do they keep changing their domain names or even the casino's name?
So I agree that a license shouldn't be taken as proof that a casino is trustworthy, but I also wouldn't say it's worthless.

[Doan9269]

Having license by a casino is not a measure to entrust them with our integrity not to perform a shady act, some already knew that is a tool for them to use so that gamblers quest to know about their reputation and present was not be much questioned, there is much to look after when it all about a casino reputation and trust and having license is just maybe one out of the other parameters that you ensure were being in place, so many gambling platforms undergo being regulated and at the end of the day you may not like what the offers right from the policies they made down to your experience with them.

[Bryan jessy]

Having license by a casino is not a measure to entrust them with our integrity not to perform a shady act, some already knew that is a tool for them to use so that gamblers quest to know about their reputation and present was not be much questioned, there is much to look after when it all about a casino reputation and trust and having license is just maybe one out of the other parameters that you ensure were being in place, so many gambling platforms undergo being regulated and at the end of the day you may not like what the offers right from the policies they made down to your experience with them.

License is one of the features that shows or qualify a casino, it serves to give an insight of authenticity of any casino, this is what some persons hold on to, some gamblers have made up their mind to only gamble with licensed casinos if I am to gamble today one of the features I will look out for among others is the license, regardless of how fake a casino is the possession of the license write something entirely different from their operations, but unauthorized casino today still have license though because they have come to understand that lots of gamblers look out for their license, so nowadays it's quite difficult to differentiate between the authentic casinos and the inauthentic ones. The best way is to work with the very casino that has been tested by others with good outcome like the ones we have here the forum.

[danherbias07]

Having license by a casino is not a measure to entrust them with our integrity not to perform a shady act, some already knew that is a tool for them to use so that gamblers quest to know about their reputation and present was not be much questioned, there is much to look after when it all about a casino reputation and trust and having license is just maybe one out of the other parameters that you ensure were being in place, so many gambling platforms undergo being regulated and at the end of the day you may not like what the offers right from the policies they made down to your experience with them.

Correct.

The problem with licensing companies is that they will cut off the ties after they have given it. It's a one-time payment and a one-time check only. They won't be responsible if a gambler is scammed due to a gambling platform suddenly vanishing.

But those who are regulated by the country will have to answer to them if they are caught cheating, although they don't really need to. Why? Because they can actually increase the house edge, and the regulators won't even care. It's legal, and that means good tax payments for them. That's why many local gambling sites or applications are making it cheaper to gamble, because they know their customers will still lose at the end of the day. They want more customers because it means more money for them.

[LUCKMCFLY]

I'm clear on this: for me, licenses are meant to ensure compliance with regulations where they operate. In other words, if they're in country X, they must have everything in order. But licenses don't guarantee that something won't turn into a scam, so for me, they're useless. Many people here defend licenses, but honestly, I don't see the point in something that's good for the customer.

[Hispo]

I'm clear on this: for me, licenses are meant to ensure compliance with regulations where they operate. In other words, if they're in country X, they must have everything in order. But licenses don't guarantee that something won't turn into a scam, so for me, they're useless. Many people here defend licenses, but honestly, I don't see the point in something that's good for the customer.

We could say the usefulness of licenses actually depend on what jurisdiction is issuing them to casinos.
Licenses from countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are very different from what we would find in licenses being offered by small islands in the Caribbean sea.
Actually, major casinos who want to serve gamblers in UK and USA need to have separate licenses in order to do so, they can't just go for a single license issued by Curaçao.

Since UK and USA are stricter when their license holders, thise licenses could be arguably more useful to prevent scams and lack of liquidity.

[tiCeR]

I'm clear on this: for me, licenses are meant to ensure compliance with regulations where they operate. In other words, if they're in country X, they must have everything in order. But licenses don't guarantee that something won't turn into a scam, so for me, they're useless. Many people here defend licenses, but honestly, I don't see the point in something that's good for the customer.

We could say the usefulness of licenses actually depend on what jurisdiction is issuing them to casinos.
Licenses from countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are very different from what we would find in licenses being offered by small islands in the Caribbean sea.
Actually, major casinos who want to serve gamblers in UK and USA need to have separate licenses in order to do so, they can't just go for a single license issued by Curaçao.

Since UK and USA are stricter when their license holders, thise licenses could be arguably more useful to prevent scams and lack of liquidity.

If a casino obtained a license from these far stricter countries like UK or USA, I think it functions as some signalling towards customers because obtaining those licenses probably does imply a few things that licenses from those smaller islands don't. It's right that this would never ultimately protect you from any casino turning into a scam, but I think it is less likely because it does show that a casino did not shy away from going through more rigorous processes to obtain it.

No license is a guarantee for anything ever. You have the best chances to prevent from being scammed when you know that a casino is running physical operations in a country that has lots of bilateral agreements for legal cooperation. In that case you have real options for legal recourse.

If you use a casino that has a license with Curacao only and is mostly operated online, risk for losing your funds is much higher. Even a Malta license can be risky because not too long ago I read about a couple of cases where the Malta government, despite being part of the EU, has defended fiercely against handing out relevant documentation or taking action against service providers where action was due because of verdicts in another EU country. That's where LUCKMCFLY is right, no guarantee ever.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Since UK and USA are stricter when their license holders, thise licenses could be arguably more useful to prevent scams and lack of liquidity.

Well, that's a very good thing, so all the regulations should adopt the same rules as those in the USA and the UK, because in the end what matters is the player's security. It's very easy for someone to scam or steal from a player, and everything is for nothing, because we already have a problem with KYC; that data will somehow end up on other servers in the face of attacks. That's something we should think about, so DSI licenses should provide that security.

[lionheart78]

I'm clear on this: for me, licenses are meant to ensure compliance with regulations where they operate. In other words, if they're in country X, they must have everything in order. But licenses don't guarantee that something won't turn into a scam, so for me, they're useless.

Licenses does gives benefits to the gambler, because this license requires the identity of the owner of th casino, so if something happened, users can be helped by the authority by pursuing the user and even liquidating the casino assets to reimburse affected players.  Without a license, tracking the owner of the casino will be harder.

Many people here defend licenses, but honestly, I don't see the point in something that's good for the customer.

I have told you the good thing, and if the authority itself is responsible, they can keep the casino games fair through inspections and verification.

[Kavelj22]

Having license by a casino is not a measure to entrust them with our integrity not to perform a shady act, some already knew that is a tool for them to use so that gamblers quest to know about their reputation and present was not be much questioned, there is much to look after when it all about a casino reputation and trust and having license is just maybe one out of the other parameters that you ensure were being in place, so many gambling platforms undergo being regulated and at the end of the day you may not like what the offers right from the policies they made down to your experience with them.

This means that nothing about quality and that obtaining a license becomes a tool to buy some credibility in front of noth authorities and users. But in reality, those licenses didn't forbid some casinos from scamming their users. We have a lot of examples here in the forum. I don't remember any case that the license issuer interfered to claim his position in one of the disputes. Those issuers just ask for money and the casino just want the license as a testimony to show to the authorities that require an activity license and to users who still nelieve the license is still a guarantee for safe use.

[Orpichukwu]

I'm clear on this: for me, licenses are meant to ensure compliance with regulations where they operate. In other words, if they're in country X, they must have everything in order. But licenses don't guarantee that something won't turn into a scam, so for me, they're useless. Many people here defend licenses, but honestly, I don't see the point in something that's good for the customer.

It’s not completely pointless; it's just that most of them have some loopholes which need to be fixed, and some of them are already upgrading their requirements before a licence can be given. It's just like a body which a customer can run to when they feel unfairly treated by the casino, and the licensing authority has more power to pressure or hold the casino responsible; that’s only if the casino has not used their loophole at their own advantage.

[Onyeeze]

This means that nothing about quality and that obtaining a license becomes a tool to buy some credibility in front of noth authorities and users. But in reality, those licenses didn't forbid some casinos from scamming their users. We have a lot of examples here in the forum. I don't remember any case that the license issuer interfered to claim his position in one of the disputes. Those issuers just ask for money and the casino just want the license as a testimony to show to the authorities that require an activity license and to users who still nelieve the license is still a guarantee for safe use.

the thing is that with the license you can trust a casino and the any person that does not have license can be easily scam their users but anyone that I have last in it will be difficult to scam their users, at first if a casino have a license that means the casino is being registered and they cannot do contrary above the condition I was giving to them during the registration that warrant then to operate with license, so that is one of the things that we have to consider and focus on the casino that operate with license and leave those ones who did not have license to operate because they can easily scam you