“Anonymous casino” is a funny label, shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead

[Wapfika]

What you said is not bad foe the gamblers to be anonymous and not the casino. And if I am to rename it, it should be "Gamblers Anonymous", and there should be no KYC either username with password or email address with password so that definition of the anonymous will be clearly known and not when it is said to be anonymous but when big wins are occured in the platform, KYC would be required and if the kyc is not clear enough to accept the gambler, the fu da are gone. That is not an anonymous casino.

No KYC is the one that frequently being market by some casino that promotes privacy on their casino which we all know not entirely true most of the time since the ToS states different.

But it’s better than casino that ask KYC immediately during registration or when you withdraw funds withdrawal because we are obligated to complete to recover our money.

Luckily, There’s still some casino that only requires KYC on extreme cases.

[Shishir99]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Well, if the casino is anonymous, that should mean the casino does not have any license, and the team behind the casino is unknown. The casino does not have the right to ask for a KYC in such a case. If the casino is anonymous, the players should be anonymous as well. As far as I know, the anonymous unlicensed casinos do not ask for your KYC. Could you name any anonymous casino that actually requires players to do KYC? If there are any, I think the number is too small and the players should avoid such casinos at any cost. You should not play on a unlicensed casino that ask for your KYC. They do not have the rights since they do not comply with the authorities.

[Charles-Tim]

Could you name any anonymous casino that actually requires players to do KYC? If there are any, I think the number is too small and the players should avoid such casinos at any cost. You should not play on a unlicensed casino that ask for your KYC. They do not have the rights since they do not comply with the authorities.

The one that I can remember is freebitco.in, but I do not know if it the site is now licensed. In the past, it was unlicensed, also according to some sources, it is not yet a licensed gambling site. I do not trust such gambling sites and I can not use the site after users of the gambling site on this forum have issues on the gambling site.

But anonymous gambling sites are gambling sites that people do not need to provide any identity information to the gambling sites. So, literally, gambling sites that do not request for KYC are anonymous gambling sites.

[m2017]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

What's unclear? You described everything correctly. The casino honestly admits that the owners remain anonymous, and this has nothing to do with the gambler's anonymity, as the casino knows a lot about them because of KYC.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Because gamblers have lost their anonymity and have no right to it. Do you want to gamble in the modern world? - Get verified. It's a choice without a right to choose.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

This is a pure marketing ploy to attract new gamblers.

Anonymity is important to me, but how can I regain it? How can you influence casino rules? Casinos have the "power" to dictate terms to customers, denying them the right to anonymity. This has become an ongoing trend in the industry.

[FirmWars]

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

It's not totally a pure marketing because some of those casinos that says they are anonymous casino are not asking for KYC, you are also right to some extent because not all the casino that claims anonymous are actually anonymous, some of them request for KYC which means that they are not anonymous as they said but they are just using the phrase for marketing. In the gambling industry, not all the casino company are honest in their marketing.

[adultcrypto]

Now that I thought about it a second time, you are right and I guess such is the mistake possible with English as a language. It should be "anonymous gambler" and not "anonymous casino". Well since you understand what they that phrase mean, I don't think it is much problem, the only problem I see is that casino can hardly render anonymous services because they will always resort to KYC if you win them too much or perhaps when you want to get involved in sharp practices that gives you some sort of undue advantages. I don't think there is any casino that does not add the clause of KYC required when necessary in their TOS. This is why I don't believe that marketing term of "anonymous casino".

[Localhostspeed]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I think it's marketing and making money from demand. If I want see there is a demand for casino service that everyone want to use and I know I can provide the service for people, I will summon the courage and take it, after all it's money making but if it's going to cost me and the government, I will make sure I protect me and the players. If I don't protect me, then there is no way I can protect the company and the players especially if they are the ones that interest the government.

Everyone has freedom to privacy but I can tell you that there is limitations to freedom, there is always a point of failure in it. However, since you are not doing Kyc and submitting any documents, you can improve ways to avoid link back to you, things like VPN and login details so that nothing come back to you, if the casino respect privacy like the way they say, they will not use any sophisticated software to get your real IP address, but how do we confirm that is another problem.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Any casino who claims to be anonymous should have no business with KYC, unless if the casino isn't really anonymous but just using the phrase just to lure people who don't like using casinos that request KYC into using their platforms and then later request for it when they wants to make a withdrawal. But for casinos that truly don't request for KYC, then that phrase is absolutely quite okay, because it is the casino that is offering such service, and not the gamblers, which is why the name "anonymous gambler" will not be suitable.

[Hispo]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I mean... People immediately undertands and assume the administration of said casinos mean USERS are the ones who are going to benefit from anonymity, not the administration itself. Though, if the administration of a casino allows their users to be anonymous, that means the casino is not regulated and it is likely for the owners to keep their true identity hidden from the general public.

This is not a problem of marketing, because people do not get confused with the term of "anonymous casino", they get it from the beginning.

[alegotardo]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

That is all marketing hype... the most common terms are "no KYC" or "full anonymity", but I confess that the label is quite vague and more about advertising than technical aspects, so I think you should not worry too much about it and try to interpret it as it is written.

What I see casinos doing most is using terms like "anonymous" or "instant online casino" in some banners and even signatures here on the forum to indicate that they prioritize anonymity, accept cryptocurrencies as a form of deposit, and will never require KYC verification. This is all to attract players who are fed up with the numerous requirements of regulated platforms and who are more concerned about privacy nowadays.

But, going back to your question... regardless of how they describe it, the focus is always on prioritizing player anonymity, from requiring a minimum registration, without KYC requirements and obviously accepting only cryptocurrencies for deposits.

[Fortify]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Have you got any examples of this? Casino owners are generally switched on and you're right, describing themselves like that is not exactly correct but also I don't think many people would care about a slight play on words. You know what they would mean when they describe themselves in such a way, which is they make efforts to respect player privacy and try not to concern themselves with collecting anything beyond the bare minimum expected - which should maybe mean storing the location funds are received from, along with giving a username and password for login. Even that last bit is not mandatory with some of the clever ways that decentralized casinos are being set up these days, where a bet can be settled from a network contract.

[PrivacyG]

Now that I thought about it a second time, you are right and I guess such is the mistake possible with English as a language. It should be "anonymous gambler" and not "anonymous casino". Well since you understand what they that phrase mean, I don't think it is much problem, the only problem I see is that casino can hardly render anonymous services because they will always resort to KYC if you win them too much or perhaps when you want to get involved in sharp practices that gives you some sort of undue advantages. I don't think there is any casino that does not add the clause of KYC required when necessary in their TOS. This is why I don't believe that marketing term of "anonymous casino".

It does not make sense, they are marketed as 'Anonymous Casinos' because they offer no Know Your Customer.  It would be very dubious to refer to Bitcoin and call it 'Pseudonymous Bitcoiner' instead of 'Pseudonymous Currency' the same way it would be very dubious to market it as 'Anonymous Gambler'.  It sounds kind of wrong.

[AmoreJaz]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.
So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I mean... People immediately undertands and assume the administration of said casinos mean USERS are the ones who are going to benefit from anonymity, not the administration itself. Though, if the administration of a casino allows their users to be anonymous, that means the casino is not regulated and it is likely for the owners to keep their true identity hidden from the general public.

This is not a problem of marketing, because people do not get confused with the term of "anonymous casino", they get it from the beginning.

This is the dilemma for most anonymous casinos because they can operate as anonymous as well and without a license. Without license these days is quite hard to trust as they can just disappear into thin air without any warning. Hence, in today's set-up, it is better to play in a kyc-casino because in case something goes wrong and the money involved is quite big, they can go after this company and report it to the licensing authority.

How gambling business operate these days already changed. Before, when crypto was still new, we did accept the presence of anonymous casinos because they were in crypto. But thru the years, because of the changing narrative, the government are now requiring them to register to operate legally. Hence, the kyc era of crypto casinos. So with the changing times, we need to adopt and now, most trusted casinos are actually licensed casinos with kyc in place.

[Rashlyowl]

To be honest, I can not remember even one Casino advertising itself as 'Anonymous'.  The closest thing is advertising themselves as 'no Know Your Customer', which is definitely in the advantage of the customer.  Do you have any examples non dubious Casinos that hide their own identity and advertise it as a feature?

In words, we have a casino that makes 'anonymous casino' as label in this forum, I'm referring to Punkz.com.

(1) Punkz.com | Anonymous Crypto Casino | Sportsbook | No KYC | 100% Welcome Bonus

I think we are discussing something not important enough, because it is just a matter of terminology, there is no way any casino would advertise to make themselves look shady, they would have nothing to gain from it. When they say they are an anonymous casino, we already know that it refers to the absence of KYC requirements.

[stadus]

I think we are discussing something not important enough, because it is just a matter of terminology, there is no way any casino would advertise to make themselves look shady, they would have nothing to gain from it. When they say they are an anonymous casino, we already know that it refers to the absence of KYC requirements.

Advertising as anonymous doesn’t automatically make a casino shady.
For most gamblers, it actually looks like a cool marketing angle. You can see that it’s not only Punkz that used this kind of wording in their ads.

What really matters isn’t the choice of words they use, but how they actually operate. That’s something you can judge based on real user experience. So far, casinos here that even have anonymous in their name seem to be doing fine, at least based on feedback and reports from users.

[Alphakilo]

It's just a marketing gimmick. An anonymous casino would bear a more shady name than outrightly stating they are anonymous, because come to still think of it, perhaps you typed anonymous in the play store and a list of casinos bearing the name anonymous pops up.
That's why I know it's just a marketing gimmick. So many theories can prove it and I don't need to say further.

[Odusko]

The statement anonymous means privacy, and by that the casino is referring to their engagement with the gambler in a way that you are not asked for KYC verification or any personal data that could become trouble or expose your privacy later, that is the reason you see them making that marketing statement, just like as you Said the anonymous here refers to the identity of the player and not the team behind the casino.

[Rashlyowl]

Advertising as anonymous doesn’t automatically make a casino shady.
For most gamblers, it actually looks like a cool marketing angle. You can see that it’s not only Punkz that used this kind of wording in their ads.

I'm on your side bros @stadus, I addressed my post to bros @freedomgo & bros @PrivacyG, because I think we are discussing useless things about the 'anonymous' word. We know that no marketer wants to lose money from the advertisements they create, they will create a good image & provide good offers to their potential users or users. This is all just a play on words, nothing to discuss, let alone debate.

[shield132]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

An anonymous casino doesn't mean that we don't know who is behind it. Monero is an anonymous cryptocurrency, but that doesn't mean that we don't know who created it and that's why we call it anonymous. No, this means that Monero is a currency that keeps users anonymous. When we read an anonymous casino, we immediately think that it's a casino that keeps its users anonymous.
Btw I'll admit that it can be a good idea for casinos to write an article about themselves and mention their casino as an anonymous gambler's casino instead of an anonymous casino and use your explanation for that. I think that it can be a good plan for marketing.

[Perfectbaby]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

What you must know is that every gambling site that are being launched today regularly parades themselves as the number one site that is  anonymous, but however they keeps collecting users documents to their site.
The most annoying part of them all is those casinos that says they are kyc free but when you win something very significant you would see them requesting for additional verification to prove source of income or against any Anti-Money-Laundering.