Restrictions can’t stop it: crypto casinos still pulled in $81B last year

[freedomgo]

Crypto casinos pulled in around $81.4 billion in revenue last year, according to reports. That’s massive growth despite regulators in many countries trying to block access.

So how are players still getting in? Two obvious drivers:

1) VPNs – players mask their real location and bypass geo-blocks with ease.
2) Sold KYC accounts – social media is full of listings for pre-verified accounts. Instead of going through ID checks themselves, users just buy one and get instant access, even if their region is restricted.

This makes regulatory blocks look weak. You can shut down a domain or block a payment channel, but if people can just use VPNs and buy ready-made accounts, the barrier is pretty low.

Questions :

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?
For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

Crypto casinos generated more than $81 billion in revenue in 2024, even as regulators in key jurisdictions continued to block access to the platforms, according to a new report.

Citing data from the anti-online-crime platform Yield Sec, the Financial Times reported that wagers paid in crypto in 2024 generated $81.4 billion in gross gaming revenue (GGR). This metric refers to the difference between bets taken and winnings paid out. 

Yield Sec data also showed that the annual revenue for crypto casinos has increased five times since 2022, despite gambling sites being blocked in the United States, China, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

[coin-investor]

Questions :

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?

If they can, they should have done this before, or the figures should not be this high, but regulators can only do what's on their duty and responsibilities; they are up against a giant industry, and they should also protect the flow of money to the government through taxes paid by casinos that they are regulating.

For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

This is a risky move, and you will eventually have to deal with the losses incurred if caught. I don't recommend this, as the scam sections are full of people getting caught because of fake credentials.

[stompix]

From the article that was used as a source:
https://archive.ph/HOQvG

Stake does not regard itself as a crypto casino and says more than half of transactions on its platform are conducted in traditional currencies.

So, why do we still call them crypto casinos?

Also , where is the 81 billion number coming from, the FT article links to this to evidence and, well, this isn't evidence
Oh, wait, I know now why the inflated numbers:

Keeping the marketplace clean afterwards is just as essential, as the marketplace can easily
remain open to future corruption. A 24/7/365 solution is required on that front, which is
what we at Yield Sec have engineered to provide: a solution platform serving all legal
stakeholders.

[freedomgo]

From the article that was used as a source:
https://archive.ph/HOQvG

Stake does not regard itself as a crypto casino and says more than half of transactions on its platform are conducted in traditional currencies.

So, why do we still call them crypto casinos?

Fair point on the $81b...

But then here’s my question back, if Stake says more than half their transactions are in fiat, how do you suggest we properly measure the crypto side of their business? Do you have another data source that gives a clearer number? Because unless someone else is tracking it, Yield Sec’s estimate is still the only one out there.

[Eternad]

Questions :

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?

Some casino like Stake use a tool that can determine if the player use VPN to access their casino which is why they have a total restriction on the use of VPN to avoid accommodating user that trying to bypass restrictions through this tool

For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

Never, sold account means it’s identity was attached to someone else which they can recover the account or flagged it as hacked account later.

[Haunebu]

When the heck have these restrictions ever properly stopped anything related to the crypto industry? Frankly, these so called regulators themselves stand to gain more from the crypto industry.

No restriction can fully stop crypto gambling sites primarily thanks to the decentralized and anonymous(To a certain extent) nature of cryptocurrencies. This is a double edged sword though(Legit and Scam sites).

[stompix]

But then here’s my question back, if Stake says more than half their transactions are in fiat, how do you suggest we properly measure the crypto side of their business? Do you have another data source that gives a clearer number? Because unless someone else is tracking it, Yield Sec’s estimate is still the only one out there.

Just because they have an estimate doesn't mean we should care about it unless they show us how they did it, tommorow another company comes and says they have found it's worth 30 billion or 200 billion, which we choose?

You can do it by breaking down the data based on motifs:
- Yield Sec has all the reasons to inflate the numbers to sell their product to the government
- Stake has no reason to lie about their crypto share, what good would that do to them?
I don't think Stake has only 4% of the whole crypto gambling, so unless someone comes with some proof about some numbers, I'll keep my opinion that these numbers are overblown.

[freedomgo]

- Stake has no reason to lie about their crypto share, what good would that do to them?
I don't think Stake has only 4% of the whole crypto gambling, so unless someone comes with some proof about some numbers, I'll keep my opinion that these numbers are overblown.

But why assume Stake has zero reason to downplay the crypto share? If regulators and media are already targeting ‘crypto casinos,’ wouldn’t it actually be in their best interest to say most of their volume is in fiat? That makes them look less like a crypto casino and takes some pressure off. But how do we know they’re not just framing it that way to protect themselves?

[internetional]

Crypto casinos may completely ignore regulators. If I understand correctly, a crypto casino can be deployed on a smart contract, and then regulators would have to go after everyone maintaining the blockchain in order to stop that smart contract.

For the same reason, no KYC is needed.

[Ziskinberg]

Crypto casinos may completely ignore regulators. If I understand correctly, a crypto casino can be deployed on a smart contract, and then regulators would have to go after everyone maintaining the blockchain in order to stop that smart contract.

For the same reason, no KYC is needed.

I think it’s not really the crypto casinos that are at fault here. Since they’re online, they’re accessible anywhere as long as you have internet. Every country has its own online gambling regulations, and if the casino isn’t operating within that country, then it’s already outside the jurisdiction of the regulators, so they can’t be held liable.

the ones who end up liable are the gamblers who still choose to access it despite knowing it’s illegal.

In the end, it’s still up to the regulators to make sure their implementation is effective, otherwise things like this will keep happening.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Questions :

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?

Regulators will ultimately win the war. How many regulations were there 10 years ago? How many casinos required KYC, and how many do so now? It's a battle they are slowly winning. Gambling revenue has increased overall, so it's logical that crypto casinos' revenue has too.

For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

No way.

[masulum]

This KYC transaction could be a fatal mistake for gamblers. While it's certainly possible for buyers to gamble on services that require KYC, if a new KYC is required for re-verification after hitting a jackpot and winning big, they may never be able to fulfill it. Even if they protest, they'll never win any accusations against the provider for fraud. If gambling is prohibited and very strict in your country,  and want to use services through alternative channels, it's better to avoid this method.

[YOSHIE]

Restrictions can’t stop it: crypto casinos still pulled in $81B last year

You should have to understand the storyline of the Hong Kong film played by Adi Lou, what restrictions to be trusted, as long as you are the Casino owner and set all the money to the jerk per month, your casino remains safe, even if you use VPN or not.

Countries generally live in taxes, the gambling industry is the big number 10 that pays taxes and distributes donations, so the restrictions are like a brand, Even though billboards or banners have disappeared, the assets for the banners continue to flow, as well as gambling.

[Hewlet]

Crypto casinos pulled in around $81.4 billion in revenue last year, according to reports. That’s massive growth despite regulators in many countries trying to block access.

Users are increasing by the day and the popularity of crypto casino is increasing also. The regulation is more towards crypto in general and as far as crypto has and is still surviving such regulations, every other thing that's attached to it is going to overcome it. The chain around the crypto space and how that investors are equally contributing to the kind of revenue that's being generated through crypto casino makes it obvious that even in the long run, regardless of the regulations, the crypto casino niche will continue to see greater revenue even in the future.

[Agbamoni]

Crypto casino's have revolutionized the gambling industries. It will take more than just regulation to stop them from thriving because they offer a lot that every gambler will seize every opportunity they have. It will take crypto ban and gambling restrictions or ban on every country to stop crypto casino. Which you and I know that it is impossible at the moment.

1) VPNs – players mask their real location and bypass geo-blocks with ease.
2) Sold KYC accounts – social media is full of listings for pre-verified accounts. Instead of going through ID checks themselves, users just buy one and get instant access, even if their region is restricted.

It is not surprising anymore. What do you expect them to do? Players will surely find a way to bypass all restrictions in as much as it is availlable in other countries.

[dimonstration]

This KYC transaction could be a fatal mistake for gamblers. While it's certainly possible for buyers to gamble on services that require KYC, if a new KYC is required for re-verification after hitting a jackpot and winning big, they may never be able to fulfill it. Even if they protest, they'll never win any accusations against the provider for fraud. If gambling is prohibited and very strict in your country,  and want to use services through alternative channels, it's better to avoid this method.

This is the repercussions which some gambler is willing to take just because their country restricts any form of online casino.

As a gambler that has freedom to gamble for sure we can’t comprehend why they keep doing that because it looks like a suicide attempt to gamble with a chance to be restricted through KYC.

There’s some services that offer KYC verification on casino accounts that became popular due to these restricted that taking chances.

[hyudien]

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?

Regulators won't be able to stop it completely, as this sector has significant economic value. Personally, I don't see any truly effective technical solutions right now other than extreme measures like shutting down internet access entirely by regulators in those countries.

For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

I don't recommend purchasing accounts that already have KYC verification. This carries serious risks, potentially exposing you to legal action later. Purchasing such accounts is not recommended.

[Akbarkoe]

This is a risky move, and you will eventually have to deal with the losses incurred if caught. I don't recommend this, as the scam sections are full of people getting caught because of fake credentials.

This is a very large risk taking and it is not recommended for anyone, we know that when getting a big victory in the casino sometimes re -verified to ensure the data and at that time will definitely be a spear of suicide because you might not be able to contact the original owner of the account.

What is difficult to think smart and not force yourself to have a position on the edge of a cliff.

[traderethereum]

Regulators are difficult to stop this if they don't work with other services to monitor their people who gamble. Even if their law strictly applies to their people, that will not stop people from visiting a crypto casino. People can use many ways that are more clever than the government because they can search on the Internet for how to visit the crypto casinos.

I don't trust a sold KYC account because that can risk me. I don't know what kind of problems can occur in the future if casinos know that thing. It is better for me to verify by myself and not rely on a sold KYC account to save me.

[Patikno]

Can regulators really stop this, or are they just playing catch-up?

I don't think the regulators will easily block access to this. There are still loopholes for people to access it, and using a VPN is one way to bypass it. Even regulators in my country seem to have difficulty doing this, and people here can bypass it simply by using a proxy feature, which is easily done in some browsers. So, I think the regulators need to make more efforts to truly stop this.

For players: would you actually trust a sold KYC account, knowing it could backfire later?

Using someone else KYC account is very dangerous. The risk for the buyer is that the account could be blocked due to suspicions raised by certain platforms, or there could be potential problems with the account (usually external). The risk for the seller is that they could get into trouble if the buyer misuses their account, for example through money laundering, If that happens, they could be implicated in the case, as they are considered the owner who has performed KYC (I haven't heard of this case, but I think it is possible to be happened).

In essence, we should avoid buying or selling other people accounts, it should be better to use our own accounts, or we can use several trusted non-KYC casinos.