Sportmarket — Sports Betting Brokerage | Crypto Deposits | KYC Required

[Haunebu]

At the moment we don’t have anything confirmed regarding additional cryptocurrencies. The current focus has been on supporting the main assets (BTC, USDT, USDC) reliably.

That said, expanding payment options is something we’re always looking at, so if anything changes, we’ll update it here.

Am totally fine with those 3 popular crypto currencies being supported which is usually not an issue for many though some would definitely want more options like dogecoin, litecoin etc just like what sites like Betinasia etc offer on their platforms.

Personally, I don't need more crypto. Instead, I would prefer more popular chains for USDT etc such as Solana, Polygon to be added asap since they are better than TRX chain overall.

[muhuang771]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

[Sportmarket]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

[Kavelj22]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

[AmoreJaz]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

At least they are pretty straightforward about this requirement, so the gambler won't be surprised later on. So they should know already what they are getting into even at the start of their journey of using this site. For me, this requirement is quite a hurdle as most licensed casinos or bookies found in the forum don't have this kind of requirement. So the gambler should weigh his options here and understand about this requirement and should be ready to provide those info if needed. This for me is quite tedious for the site itself as they need to verify the validity of the funds presented for the last 3 months.

[MuffinMaster]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

I think the most important message in this requirement is - only use funds whose source you can prove.

[Haunebu]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

It does suck for sure, but it's sadly pretty common among sports brokers these days thanks to their licenses as op himself mentioned. I have accounts with sportmarket, betinasia etc where I experienced this sort of stuff(Advanced KYC) now and then.

These 2 sites specifically are the most reputed ones which is why it's a bit easier to trust them with such docs, but I don't suggest submitting them at any other broker site just to be safe.

[Sportmarket]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

Appreciate the question, Kavelj22. It wouldn't really be right for us to publish a checklist of what counts as proof for every scenario, every source-of-funds review is done individually based on the user's circumstances, and committing to specifics in a forum post would set expectations we can't realistically keep across every case.

What we can say in general terms:

- Deposits need to come from a wallet you control.
- You should be able to explain where the funds came from and provide reasonable documentation if we ask for it.

That covers the cases you raised. If it ever comes up on your account, support can walk you through what's needed for your specific situation.

[Kavelj22]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

Appreciate the question, Kavelj22. It wouldn't really be right for us to publish a checklist of what counts as proof for every scenario, every source-of-funds review is done individually based on the user's circumstances, and committing to specifics in a forum post would set expectations we can't realistically keep across every case.

What we can say in general terms:

- Deposits need to come from a wallet you control.
- You should be able to explain where the funds came from and provide reasonable documentation if we ask for it.

That covers the cases you raised. If it ever comes up on your account, support can walk you through what's needed for your specific situation.

I appreciate your detailed response as well, although I might not be that comfortable with your policy to ask about source of funds for crypto users. If someone should always be ready to verify the source of his funds, why to use cryptocurrencies at first place!

As an additional act of transparency, I suggest you add a notice in every deposit session that it is mandatory to use a personal wallet for deposit and being able to confirm a reliable source of funds when asked. Just to avoid the risk if the source of funds will be asked for any reason.

I don't have official stats but I can ensure you and everybody that the number of users using services platforms and H2H deals is so higher than the number of those using personal wallets for daily transactions.