Privacy almost looking abnormal online.

[bitbollo]

This is one (if not the main reason) why you should avoid at any cost to use unregulated or SHADY gambling platforms.
Even if their business can be really profitable this not means ALL services can offer the same support or the same quality.
At the end this is also another reason why "serious" gamblers must use only regulated platforms - or at latest platforms that have a clear and honest reputation.

[Darker45]

That's true to a certain extent. A casino that isn't registered isn't automatically a bad casino. It doesn't necessarily follow that an unregulated casino is a scam or a fraud.

However, accountability matters, especially because it involves money and fairness. A casino that can't easily be held accountable because it has no official record or isn't a legal entity possesses a certain amount of freedom that might be used to the detriment of the consuming public. It's a casino that isn't compelled to follow policies, doesn't undergo compulsory audits, doesn't pass through screenings and evaluations, and so on. All this could mean lack of protection to the users.

[xenomorfo]

If casinos that are regulated already pose a risk when you engage in play on their platforms, the risk with those that are unregulated is even greater. In our country, the government?s management of affairs is such that one can only shake their head in disbelief; illegal casinos keep running as though they are sanctioned. The reason for this is that the individual orchestrating these unlawful activities is frequently a current officeholder in our government.

This is the reason our government has been labeled a syndicate: our president is viewed as a puppet for oligarchs or syndicate leaders. This is unfortunate, as it is deeply unjust to legal online casinos that pay taxes, while the unregulated ones do not pay anything and yet operate in the same manner as the legal ones.

It is not advisable to play in unregulated ones, because some of these, if not most, could steal your money and you can't turn to anyone. Unfortunately we can't know how the unregulated ones think, but I'll tell you one thing, more than the regulated ones, I recommend playing, if you like it and have fun, in the ones reviewed in the forum.

[Zigabel]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

Actually it is risky using unregulated casinos because in situations where you have issues with the casinos, you cannot take actins against them as they can abscond and you will have no case, but if they are regulated, there are requirements they meet to be under those regulated bodies that will make them want to protect their brand and not engage in fowl behaviors that will endanger their brand and so they will for that reason not want to go contrary to the regulatory rules so they do not get their operational license withheld and they have no credibility to operate, some unregulated casinos can be good but it is risky using them, so it is always better to protect your interest to be on the regulated casino even if it happens that your KYC  is required, maybe it is one of the regulatory requirements for them. Asides the KYC requirements, the regulations is mostly in your best interest.

[Joeboy]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

If you think that regulation/ unregulation is simply just a socio-econimic construct, then you wrong.. This is coz regulation goes beyond just privacy, infact it is mainly about accountability of casino operators... When a casino is licensed, there will be a kind of legal body which will be there to ensure compliance, and Help investigate any kind of fraud or unfair practices that may be of great harm or discomfort to me and you that are the gamblers...

Though I wouldn't assume that all unregulated casino are majorly scams...But I like believing that unregulated casino would lack any kind of customers protection, infact the casino can decide to cease withdrawal, or do any thing they feel like to their customers since they know that they aren't under the control of any kind of legal body...

[Findingnemo]

Unregulated makes them illegal if the country laws categorize them in that way and the same casino can still be legal while unregulated, just a possibility though but which doesn't make the casino a bad one, it's just how the government or the system made us to believe. Anything that doesn't comes under the surveillance of government agencies is bad even though it is just an illusion to make the people stay away from using them so the government can track all your financial activities accurately.

You are right, as the government would go at all costs to make sure anything and everything business is under their radar so they could keep track of activity for taxation and all have you. They paint unregulated organisations all sorts of names and caution the public against them, and even go as far as clamping down on those they could lay their hands upon. All these are just ways to intimidate those they could and make them come under their regulations so they could get something out of them.

It's not something but almost everything, they can squeeze their citizens to pay their earned money in one or the other way. And they also made us to believe that is the right thing to do and anyone who questions their censorship and controlling would be conisderred as a criminal and they would want to make them go away before the spot light falls on them.

[YOSHIE]

Casinos commit fraud or are unfair to their users based on certain cases and factors, even though the casino has a registered Privacy and license or their Reputation.

For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use).

Yes, in general casinos without regulations are seen as illegal or bad, but not all of them, some online casinos without regulations can be said to be good, fair and responsible towards their users until now, on the contrary legal and regulated casinos often have problems.

Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

As I said in the first point, so the authorities have a purpose for Regulation, Licensing and so on, there is no reason for casinos to do things beyond expectations, but at a glance it is listed, that's all.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

Talking about online casino privacy, that's another story, for some licensed and unlicensed online casinos the same problems also often occur, even though both apply the same KYC to their users, What's wrong is the problem, in this internet/virtual world anything can be hacked, meaning that nothing is safe when it comes to personal data.

[danherbias07]

No. But it's very rare to find an online casino that is not regulated anymore.

This is something that we must look into if we are forcing our belief that there's no need for KYC and to keep the privacy. All those who want to keep their anonymous identity will have to protect themselves. They will deal with a very risky online casino if they want to keep their information intact on their own.

Most of the time, a gambler would just accept the terms and do KYC because it's a protection on both ends and will probably be helpful in case something bad happen like a sudden closure of the casino. We can somehow get our balance back, like that trading site that tried to
 escape and is still paying the customers up until now. Regulation doesn't mean cornering the customer. It's also security that we can chase them if they make mistakes.

[Accardo]

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

As you should know, everything has an underlying structure and process that makes it achieve its goals. Propagandas make up for the  whole part of the shady marketing structure directed at winning a 'preffered competitor' in the market. Players wouldn't have moved in to the centralized settings had a propaganda like that wasn't cooked up. Players have a lot of power over these casinos but they let it out to persuasion and problem gaming, it'll take a lot of time before gamblers could realized how they could bring down the centralized settings if they insist on playing with no KYC casinos. When that happens many centralized casinos would have no other option than to move back to the default ways.

As we are made to belief that we should be careful with our money, privacy is way more important than money, for a better clarity, people actually pay high to protect their privacy. I don't see why an average gambler would be greedy with everything including his identity.

No need to think further, the marketing structure made it work, and a good percentage of gamblers went that route, but whatever it is both sides are the same, the no kyc Casino will wake up one morning and say we now require KYC in accordance to the KYC policy, they can't disobey the government and these centralized casinos seem to have good features that interest the average gambler, more than the unregulated ones, which turns out most of the time to be newly created casinos looking to milk from the small market of the no kyc players.

[lombok]

No. But it's very rare to find an online casino that is not regulated anymore.

This is something that we must look into if we are forcing our belief that there's no need for KYC and to keep the privacy. All those who want to keep their anonymous identity will have to protect themselves. They will deal with a very risky online casino if they want to keep their information intact on their own.

Most of the time, a gambler would just accept the terms and do KYC because it's a protection on both ends and will probably be helpful in case something bad happen like a sudden closure of the casino. We can somehow get our balance back, like that trading site that tried to
 escape and is still paying the customers up until now. Regulation doesn't mean cornering the customer. It's also security that we can chase them if they make mistakes.

Striking the balance between the need of anonymity and the safety of money is an important challenge in internet banking. In my opinion an official verification system can serve as a safe source of legal redress in case of a failure of casinos operation. What we should learn is that too much privacy would result in the danger of losing your money with no option. In my opinion, payment of regulations is an investment in tranquilly and the safety of all our operations.

[Z-tight]

It would be hard for unlicensed casinos to compete with casinos with a license, that is why you find a lot of unlicensed casinos lying that they actually have a license, when they do not. People feel safer when they gamble in licensed casinos, that does not mean their funds or data is safe with them, but it also does not mean it is safe in unlicensed casinos. So you see why the choice is easy for players to make.

[retreat]

There are reputable casino platforms on this forum that operate unregulated, and they still pay their users to this day. So, not all unregulated casinos are bad, whether they're bad or not depends on the platform's credibility. However, most platforms are currently regulated, which at least provides a sense of security for users. While it doesn't guarantee they won't end up being scammed, it's a slight "better" than new, unregulated casino platforms, which in many cases often scam users.

[Royal Cap]

For me, the biggest value of a license is having a place where you can complain if there is a problem. That is it provides a minimum framework of trust but it is also true that privacy has decreased a lot with KYC and regulation and many users feel comfortable on unregulated platforms because of this, However I do not see this as just a fear created by a centralized authority, because if you go to an unregulated place, you have to take the risk entirely on yourself, If your withdrawal is blocked or if the game is not fair, you have no legal backup. So for me it is not a question of good or bad, but rather a matter of choice as to which one you lean more towards between privacy and security.

[OgNasty]

I think privacy online will eventually become outlawed by governments.  They want to control speech so badly that they will give up their citizen's privacy to be able to arrest those who speak things outside their narrative.

I remember back in the early 2000s I made a public post saying that anonymity was the new American dream which was not well received.  This was as I saw people begin posting what they ate for lunch on social media.  In a world where everyone freely gives up their privacy, anonymity will become more and more important.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

I personally can understand the point you are trying to make and I can honestly say that it does make some good sense, but then I have to say that I personally believe the reason why casinos that are not under any regulation are treated or assumed to be dangerous is due to the fact that it's casinos like this that mostly sooner or later turn into a scam, what this means that is they one day vanish with funds belonging to their users and there is no way any one can trace those who operated the casino.

This is my own personal reason why I still prefer casinos that are regulated and have a genuine veriable licence, casinos like this still scam but it rarely happens, and even they do, the authorities can trace and arrest those behind the casino sooner or later in the future.

[Dunamisx]

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

It's not a must that we have to use a kyc casino before we can Gamble, there are platform that does not requires us to give our personal details before we can use them or perform any function on them, all we may need for now is to totally search through which are the kinds of casinos that do not require kyc in order for us to take advantage of using them for gambling.

[STT]

The origins of crypto gambling was directly on the blockchain but sadly that ideal decentralized system couldn't work beyond the start of BTC.   Too much traffic to be doing that and of course its very abstract but doing the contract part via the blockchain ledge would still be ideal but unlikely to happen.
   I think everything past that is a compromise of some sort which is why you shouldnt put all in but just play gradually so its never a big deal.

[Grace333]

~snip

From what I've observed, people actually see centralization as a safe haven. So they just assume it's safe once they have that assurance it is centralized. Most no KYC casinos still have a license but I think these days it depends mostly on what country or region they acquired the licence from because of flexibility.

It's quite difficult for a casino without a license to go really far because of legal issues they might face as time passes. Nevertheless it's not an excuse to accept KYC for literally anything.

It's sad that people don't know dangerous it is for their personal information to get into the wrong hand, and that is why they like centralized casinos. Since i discovered about decentralization I've always known the risk in making use of a centralized platform. Sometimes these casino or platform make statements like data would not be shared to a third-party yet if authorities request for it they wouldn't hesitate to share, and what are the chances that these information are not being giving out especially by some staffs who happens to get hand on them. It would have been better to just stick with decentralized platforms but the government are demanding KYC from casino and that is how most casinos are getting converted.

[salad daging]

From my personal experience, there are regulated, licensed casinos that can raise a red flag, and there are unregulated casinos that provide users with a worthwhile experience.
Being licensed of a casino does not technically mean it's a safe gambling platform but in the current crypto gambling space most gamblers feel safer going for a regulated gambling platform.

Many actually licensed casinos also raise suspicion, maybe it's the case that every case that keeps coming up makes us suspicious? Like LTC Casino does not have a license but provides a great experience there even though I myself have never played, but some people say the experience is good.

Yep we often assume that a regulated casino is safe, it means that it is under the supervision of the government even though there is still a lot of bad handling from the casino, it's just that having a license means that the casino is serious enough in its business.

[Alex077]

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

I completely agree with you bro, the main purpose of this regulation ado is to impose KYC hassle on everyone on a mass scale. They want to make privacy a dubious practice whereas we came into the crypto world to get free from this surveillance

However @teddybear bro is not wrong either. The way the rug pull and project going public are happening in the market has created a demand for accountability in my mind too. Gamblers has been caught so many time lol now they want someone to blame

If you ask me what is the best combination? I would say that the best combination for me is provably fair, no KYC and on chain liquidity. Where I can check rtp & seed by myself and smart contract will handle the other thing, then we will not need govt signature to feel safe