Privacy almost looking abnormal online.

[letteredhub]

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.

[teddybear]

I don't think it would've been a problem if not for the countless rug-pulls and anonymous hacks leading to tucking tails and running away, by gambling/trading sites, without facing any consequences. People needed some relatability or authority that would bring us to justice. Ideally, I would like non-kyc gambling website to thrive but that hasn't really happened well until now. The only one successful case as far as I remember was directbet but they shut shop and left long time ago.

[Nathrixxx]

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

We have to expand our definition for regulation, because this is just only all about government approval and license to operate as being recognized under their regulated authorities and there's no any additional benefits to this than what has been said, while any Gambler that uses a gambling platform is doing that at his own risk either be it a regulated or non-regulated casino.

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.

It's very possible that an unregulated gambling casino could be a bad one and it's also in another way possible that the reputed one's don't have time to be regulated because they want to maintain their own privacy as well, a casino that does not support kyc may not be regulated and this does not make them not to be trusted it's all depends on those behind the development of every casino operations.

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.

Eventually not all gambling platform will be found regulated and support kyc, because we have casinos today that doesn't demand for such.

[Wiwo]

If not now that we have regulations coming into cryptocurrency, with the presence of centralised services, this demand for centralised services has shifted us away from the privacy in cryptocurrency.

Unregulated gambling sites, if operational, then we can trust them since they are not demanding KYC from us regulation is just for government involvement taxes and licensing, so an unregulated casino can be used, but with limits to how much funds we transact with them.

Sometimes we have to accept the fact that most unregulated casinos have a hard time being operational, most especially in the area of liquidity and other operational demands that keep them out of the market.
If we have the choice to choose between an unregulated decentralised casino vs a regulated KYC casino, definitely most cryptocurrency users will prefer to go for a DEX casino.

[Slow death]

I don't like KYC and regulation, but I accept KYC and regulation because in the past, when this cryptocurrency market started, scammers had a lot of freedom because they knew they would get away with it online. They created website after website, and this cycle never ended. This caused people to fear this market. But with regulation, scam cases have gradually decreased, and this market is being respected. Crypto casinos are also providing better service and are being recognized in many countries.

[Obim34]

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.

You will start by asking why do a casino needs to be licensed, from there you get all answers.

The first aim of licensed casino should be users protection, and also against the case of fraud and money laundering, that is why we have mostly No KYC casinos demanding KYC at some point.

Even crypto casino are under license from gaming authority, once a casino is not licensed, you as a gambler is at risk.

[noorman0]

Most crypto online casinos are centralized. Without the involvement of a regulatory authority to mediate or simply label the casino as legal, you hand over complete control to the casino and must adhere solely to a single internal policy without external oversight.

Some gamblers don't necessarily resent the government for intruding on their privacy, but they also see it as a last resort against unfair disputes. Although, I must admit, some have had poor resolution experiences due to the lack of strong law enforcement.

[Nwada001]

I don't think it would've been a problem if not for the countless rug-pulls and anonymous hacks leading to tucking tails and running away, by gambling/trading sites, without facing any consequences. People needed some relatability or authority that would bring us to justice. Ideally, I would like non-kyc gambling website to thrive but that hasn't really happened well until now. The only one successful case as far as I remember was directbet but they shut shop and left long time ago.

Regulation is just making things look normal and telling people they are somehow protected, but are they really protected from being scammed by these casinos? A casino can be licensed and regulated and still turn out to be a rug pull or be selective scammers.

Licensing doesn't stop anything, especially now that tech has made anything possible. A licensed casino can still pull an exit scam, and nobody will be able to locate them, which is one thing that licensing is supposed to protect against. In reality, most of the licensing is being pressured to be done because the regulators are more concerned about monitoring individuals' money flow and tax returns.

[Cryptomultiplier]

I don't think it would've been a problem if not for the countless rug-pulls and anonymous hacks leading to tucking tails and running away, by gambling/trading sites, without facing any consequences. People needed some relatability or authority that would bring us to justice. Ideally, I would like non-kyc gambling website to thrive but that hasn't really happened well until now. The only one successful case as far as I remember was directbet but they shut shop and left long time ago.

Regulation is just making things look normal and telling people they are somehow protected, but are they really protected from being scammed by these casinos? A casino can be licensed and regulated and still turn out to be a rug pull or be selective scammers.

Licensing doesn't stop anything, especially now that tech has made anything possible. A licensed casino can still pull an exit scam, and nobody will be able to locate them, which is one thing that licensing is supposed to protect against. In reality, most of the licensing is being pressured to be done because the regulators are more concerned about monitoring individuals' money flow and tax returns.

Licensing is just to have information on the casino, it's owners and players, so as to be able to hold them accountable Incase of strange unlawful or unjustly reasons such as AML suspicions and other fraud, scams and hacking issues.
It makes a customer confident in visiting and staking their funds in a casino without worries and Incase of issues, and so they can hold the casino to provide reasons where necessary by reporting them to licence bodies.

[suzanne5223]

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.

[rdluffy]

It's something to think about

Many of us used crypto even before there was any regulation, whether with Bitcoin, ETH, or other altcoins, and they were even banned in certain countries

A casino not having a license does not automatically mean that it is a scam or unsafe, but we are left with the feeling (which may be false) that a regulated casino is safer if something goes wrong and we can get our money back
However, it is a little difficult for a casino to operate illegally nowadays with the amount of monitoring that exists

[aoluain]

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.

Yes an unregulated casino is technically an illegal casino but that obviously depends on
your jurisdiction but it doesnt necessarily make them "bad to use"

Given the choice and opportunity would we use a non licensed casino with no KYC over
a regulated one and having to submit our identity?

I know its a different business but the HodlHodl platform I use is not regulated and its
for the most part better than using the likes of Coinbase

Anyway an unregulated casino with a proven track record would be preferable to a
centralised one for a good percentage of users I would say.

[Odohu]

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.

Technically, an unregistered casino is said to be illegal because it is operating without any legal documentation from any jurisdiction.  What this mean is that they are completely unknown, can't be sued and does not answer to any authority in the advent of conflict. The risk of playing in such casino is huge, little players may not know but high rollers will be skeptical about depositing money in such platform because they can take the money and cannot be sued.

[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.

[Itz-prisigold]

I think there is more to discuss than whether or not  a platform is licensed or unlicensed. First, to some extent,  I think regulation does not automatically mean safety and lack of regulation does not mean that the platform is evil or wants to scam people. It may just mean they are functioning outside of a certain region’s control or framework. Conspiracy is a strong word and I don’t want to see everything as a conspiracy either,  but I think some regulation is good. Because regulation can protect the users from obvious scams but it can also give the authorities a structured way to enforce KYC and Data collection.

It's just odd to me how,  if someone does not ask for personal information,  people will now start to think that it is a bad site, or it's shady. To me, this is a sort of odd mindset. I think the platform wanting to keep your data to yourself should not automatically be a reason to tag the platform a red flag.

This being said,  I will still say that people should just be smart. No KYC does not mean safety and having a license does not mean perfect either. I think trust and privacy are important,  and also try and do some personal research before  placing your trust in a site.

[FirmWars]

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.

Based on my understanding, if a casino obtains a license in the jurisdiction that they liked to, it means that the casino is legally conducting their business and it also means that customer's rights are safe too. Unregulated casinos often referred as illegal gambling also comes with the risk of no customer's rights safety. The reason for this licensing is also for customer's rights safety, not just about implementation of KYC.

[CryptSafe]

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.

[7juju]

Unregulated casino might not actually be a bad casino to use, but why are they avoiding regulation? If a casino is not regulated that means they can do whatever they want at anytime without anyone holding them accountable. As a gambler I will be more comfortable gambling with a platform that's well regulated and follows standard protocols. I would really prefer a situation were there will be a third party monitoring the activities of the platform I'm entrusting with my money.

[Joy_learns_crypto]

I don't like KYC and regulation, but I accept KYC and regulation because in the past, when this cryptocurrency market started, scammers had a lot of freedom because they knew they would get away with it online. They created website after website, and this cycle never ended. This caused people to fear this market. But with regulation, scam cases have gradually decreased, and this market is being respected. Crypto casinos are also providing better service and are being recognized in many countries.

I concede to this, scammers has made unregulation and no KYC risky, the freedom in unregulated casino platforms is exploited by scammers, I want privacy like you too but for scammers sake It is something to think about.
A good unregulated, no KYC platform is good but what happens when they get attacked by hackers?
Privacy is looking abnormal online now because scammers are exploiting those wanting a privacy secure casino companies.

[Fortify]

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.

Don't confuse having a license with being regulated, as these two things are often not synonymous with each other. There are many small island nations out there who have few sources of income but they do have sovereignty enough that they can offer so-called licenses that are "offshore" and subject to different, more favorable rules. That can mean everything from useful tax arrangements to lack of oversight or protection for customers of casinos that fall within this regulatory regime. These countries often don't even have the facilities to investigate, pursue or do the slightest thing even if wrong doing was discovered. They are fronts, often serving as nothing more than a piece of paper with a certificate on it but none of the staff, security, hosting or other infrastructure is hosted within a thousand miles of these places - plus their enforcement abilities are tiny.