Is the end of no-KYC casinos inevitable as governments chase gambling revenue?

[lixer]

Interestingly enough, I would not play at place that offers no-KYC and if they do have that option, I do KYC myself. Because it locks you as your accounts owner, and there were many cases where it was questionable and the crew had to confirm I am who I say I am, but with KYC, that became easier and now I can easily prove to them that I am who I say I am and anything that is wrong, I can easily fix.

I show who I am, and then they ask me some bill with my name on it or whatever, that is in the last three months, and I show them because it's actually me and I do pay bills (unfortunately lol) so I can prove that easily. This is why, if any casino offers me KYC, even if it is not mandatory, I still fill that up personally.

[FirmWars]

Before, it was not in the interest of the government to force casinos to comply with KYC requirement and even then, the casinos did not also request KYC, you can go and check the previous years, you will see that casinos didn't demand KYC but now that the government are putting their attention to the industry because of the annual revenue that they are generating, what do you expect? Of course the number of no-KYC casinos will reduce because the government wants them to comply with their policy and that demands that they collect KYC from customers.

[xbetz.io]

I don’t think no-KYC disappears overnight but I do think it becomes less predictable.

What usually changes first isn’t access, but behavior:
- lower withdrawal thresholds triggering reviews
- slower payouts after repeated cashouts
- retroactive rule enforcement once volumes increase

Governments don’t need to ban no-KYC outright to influence it. Pressure tends to show up indirectly through payment rails, liquidity partners or compliance expectations behind the scenes. For players, the real shift is that privacy vs reliability becomes a trade-off instead of a given. Early on, platforms compete on freedom. Later, they optimize for survivability. That doesn’t make regulation “good” or “bad” but it does mean users should judge platforms by how they behave over time, not by what they promise at launch.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

As the gambling industry continues to grow, there is every possibility that government will on the other hand continue to make regulation even stricter that it will cause casinos to also become more strict with how they go about users kyc verification, and like I have always pointed out, there are no registered non-kyc casinos anymore even now, it is very important we all know that every casino that is  a non-kyc casino is not registered and does not have a legal or genuine licence issued by the government.

So in the future, it's still possible that casinos that are no registered and does not have a genuine licence can still operate as a non-kyc casino but this will be risky cus if anything happens, money belonging to gamblers held by the casino is gone cus the owners of the casino are possibly going to run away with it..
The only safe non-kyc casinos by then would be decentralised casinos if they later turn out to become big.

[shawonngp]

I believe that in the near future, if all gambling sites are required to verify identity due to government rules and policies, there must be alternative platforms that are not willing to ask your KYC. Governments of many countries have already implemented their own casino businesses, which can indeed generate a significant amount of revenue, as they involve a large number of people. So the government can collect much higher TAX. Most casino companies operate in secrecy. So even if the government wants to stop it, it cannot be possible.

[Antotena]

Before, it was not in the interest of the government to force casinos to comply with KYC requirement and even then, the casinos did not also request KYC, you can go and check the previous years, you will see that casinos didn't demand KYC but now that the government are putting their attention to the industry because of the annual revenue that they are generating, what do you expect? Of course the number of no-KYC casinos will reduce because the government wants them to comply with their policy and that demands that they collect KYC from customers.

There is interest in individuals forming casino recently that's why. Back then, you hardly see casino in numbers, they are very few back then but today you see many of them want to be a company and you know why? That's because there is huge money on casino business. The governments has seen the interest, so they want to be among people eating the money with the company and at the same time with the people, they can't see opportunity and take eyes from it.

The government survive on tax, they don't really care about people and that's why they enforce all this on people and it's not making sense. They will think that they are making people support the country but they are making it even harder. The tax percentage is even ridiculous, tell me why you want to take 30% from gambling when I win but when I lose I get nothing. The idea of tax doesn't make sense to me and even if they want to take, they should be considerate.

[promise444c5]

When something gets more and more popular, handling Millions to Billions ~ it attracts attention and part of the attention is the government.. they already get most of what they need through taxing the casino anyway but some could tax individuals large winnings (it depends).

The KYC of a thing  on the other hand, doesn’t really stop them from taxing a casino depending on the nature of the casino.. So a no-KYC casino can still be taxed in some cases.
The major problem is that they don’t like what they can’t control and a NoKYC casino promotes that.. they will eventually continue to go harder until there are little to none left.

[Bitcoin Smith]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

It is subjective, as a gambler I don't like more restrictions or government tracking each of my deposits and ask the casino to report directly to the tax authority but that is where we are heading with the more growth of casinos. Yes it is inevitable but that makes the life of gamblers to turn out to be a hell.

Maybe we will get used to that in the long run? Maybe...

[Mindyspace]

Regulation has two sides. It helps prevent scams, but it also puts an end to things like casinos without KYC (Know Your Customer). The question is whether this is really to protect the player or just to facilitate control and revenue collection, isn't it?

[Abu-Naim]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

As long as we still
Have decentralized exchanges that did not demand for KYC despite the regulatory bodies from government towards have control over cryptocurrency affairs and to generate revenue from them, there will still be decentralized casino platforms that will not require KYC and you can make your deposit and withdrawals through non custodial wallets and remain free from any government threat.

Casino platforms should not be scared of paying for revenue because they are making g big money from these platforms, they are having regular players and more deposits always because the ratio of people that do win is below the ratio of people that lose every minutes, so they are having more money to create more casino platforms because of the money they are having that is why the government is trying to try that sector for generating more money.

[bitcoindusts]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

If you put it that way, it looks like inevitable that all casinos will have a mandatory implementation of KYC since it is one of the requirement of the government. But, as I think of it, the inevitability of KYC for every casinos seems to be on fiat gambling casino.  Remember, in crypto only casinos seems to have a loose regualion what more on the country that have loose regulation.  People can still play on crypto only casinos because most country don't have a solid regulations on cryptocurrency so crypto only casinos may not ask for KYC, and gamblers can play anonymously on this platform.

While other casino don't implement KYC on low or small cash bet and don't require any ID unless one has huge win meaning KYC requirement is conditional.

[Mia Chloe]

When something gets more and more popular, handling Millions to Billions ~ it attracts attention and part of the attention is the government.. they already get most of what they need through taxing the casino anyway but some could tax individuals large winnings (it depends).

Yeah I agree to this and the big problem is once it ain't profitable for the government no more then they tag it as a form of money laundering scheme and in the end they sieze the funds and add it to their reserves. Point is wether we like it or not decentralization is being constantly fought by the government.

Will no KYC casinos vanish? Well nope not totally but the worse that's gonna happen is laws are gonna stretch them so thin you'll hardly come across any of them.

[Slow death]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

Unfortunately, most governments only think about taking money from citizens' pockets through taxes, but they don't care about creating good living conditions for them. Let's look at the cases of KYC in gambling, particularly in online casinos. Governments require customers to go through KYC, but they don't ask owners to be anonymous and publicly display their names. Governments don't help when people are cheated and robbed by casinos. They only care about tax money. The more money the industry has, the more interested the governments will be.

[adultcrypto]

The end of no-KYC casino is still far in my opinion because not matter the pressure from of many countries, international casinos still make their rules and regulations with little influence from some governments. The highest governments can do is to block the IP of those casinos but that will not hold water because that can easily be bypassed through VPN. The best government can do is to collaborate with the casinos, give them safe atmosphere to operate and that is when they will really benefit in terms of revenue. However, no-KYC is just on theory, the casinos always have the caveat of reserving the right to ask for KYC when they deem it necessary.

[Findingnemo]

Regulation has two sides. It helps prevent scams, but it also puts an end to things like casinos without KYC (Know Your Customer). The question is whether this is really to protect the player or just to facilitate control and revenue collection, isn't it?

Really? When did the government save anyone who became a victim of scam platform, which is ctually a regulated one and to be honest it is not even possible to prove that the casino involved in the scam unless they completely shut down their door without giving users funds but again they have legal right to do it which we agreed while registering itself. So regulation didn't made anyone's life better even for the casino but they need to do it because people expected the casinos to be licensed one.

[Sanitough]

However, no-KYC is just on theory, the casinos always have the caveat of reserving the right to ask for KYC when they deem it necessary.

You keep mentioning government but at the same time don’t want to include KYC, which honestly doesn’t make sense. Government involvement automatically means KYC. They’re the main reason the market is now being forced to comply with it.

Because of that, truly anonymous gambling isn’t really enjoyable anymore, at least not in the real sense. What casinos are offering now is mostly false hope. It’s more of a marketing strategy than reality. In practice, they’re still KYC casinos, just not strictly enforcing it right away.

[7juju]

So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?

Gambling has been here for long, and if eventually the government are now turning their attention to it because the industry is now generating more revenues lately, I don't see why gamblers should be worried about it. The only thing that the government will require from the gamblers is adherence to any regulation policies that they will introduce. Besides the gambling industry has been regulated for years now. As long as the government are getting their taxes from casino operators, I don't think they will have problems with gamblers.

[Davidvictorson]

I think that no matter how much the government gambling revenue on online casinos thereby making them to require KYC from players, there would still be those casinos that would not require KYC unless there is a reason beyond every reasonable doubt to make such a request. Anyone who is concerned about the KYC request and government interference, which online casinos most at this time begin to look for other options that are still legal but is strictly and truly a no-kyc

[KTChampions]

~
So the question is, as the gambling industry continues to grow and become more “legitimate” in the eyes of governments, is this actually good for us as players? Or does it just mean less privacy, more restrictions, and fewer options like no-KYC casinos?
~

I suspect that "gray" casinos are also growing. We're seeing overall market growth—the growth of legal casinos doesn't mean that gray casinos aren't. And it's obvious to me that no matter how strictly gambling (or other aspects of people's lives) is regulated, there will always be a niche where interested people will do business themselves without external control, there will always be a way. In the digital world, control is strict, but in the real world it is even stricter (purely because of physical limitations that prevent you from being in the US one minute and in Vietnam the next) and there are always ways around it.

[Odusko]

The more regulators get involved with anything Decentralized, we should already know that there is lose if privacy and exposure to Centralised control, this is what is expected in most cases like this, so tax is very important to the government and for that reason, casinos most uptain license and get taxed to be able to operate.