We are a Hybrid brand , as you can see there are fiat payment options too, that's why there is a verification requirement, but i can assure you it's fully no KYC on crypto as mentioned. This rule about verification is only for visa/Mastercard users
No need to bold your answers.
As you claim that your brand does not require KYC for crypto users, could you please confirm whether this is mentioned anywhere on the website? If not, I would ask you to add it to the same KYC page where we do not require KYC for exclusive crypto users. Also, please clearly mention that the KYC policy applies to fiat users only. There is no other way you can avoid the KYC-related conflicts. The forum does not require platforms that require KYC. So, either you clarify that on your website itself. Or you get such questions almost every day and probably the high rollers won't even sign up seeing these discussions.
We’re currently updating our KYC/AML page to include a dedicated section where this will be explained clearly in detail — specifically outlining that KYC requirements apply to fiat users, while crypto users can operate without mandatory verification unless triggered by risk factors.
This should remove any confusion and make everything fully transparent going forward.
-----------------
We understand your point, and just to clarify — this rule is not there to limit regular players, but to prevent fraudulent activity.
We’ve seen cases where certain games (like dice or similar low-risk/high-frequency games) are used to bypass requirements or gain unfair advantage. Because of that, some restrictions are applied specifically to protect the system and keep things fair for everyone.
It doesn't make any sense here. Every single casino consider the wager of mini games (in-house type games) normally for the deposit rollover requirement, VIP ranking system and wager contest. I have played at a lot of casinos, never seen any of them have this type of unreasonable requirement for normal deposits. What type of unfair advantage will a player gain by playing the mini games?
Users are only allowed to lose their funds by playing those games, their wager isn't considered as valid. And it is a fraudulent activity if users play those games
.
The reason for this is that certain mini games (like dice) can be used with very low-risk strategies to cycle large volume and meet requirements with minimal loss, which can be used to exploit bonuses or promotions.
For example, some players repeatedly bet at very low multipliers (like 1.01), where losses are rare, allowing them to farm wagering, VIP points, or promotions while avoiding real risk.
That said, we’re actively working on improving this and adding more games to the allowed group, including mini games, to keep a better balance between fairness and user experience.
---------------------
I just came here and saw a new casino registered on the forum, before I say welcome to Bitcointalk, I hope you and your business goes well and reaches very high popularity on the forum like other casinos before.
I just visited your casino, and from the looks of it is quite familiar with the color design, maybe I have seen it, but I don't know where.
BTW is there any particular bonus for players from Bitcointalk?
Thanks for your kind words , we are preparing exclusive bonus for bitcointalk
----------------
We understand your point, and just to clarify — this rule is not there to limit regular players, but to prevent fraudulent activity.
We’ve seen cases where certain games (like dice or similar low-risk/high-frequency games) are used to bypass requirements or gain unfair advantage. Because of that, some restrictions are applied specifically to protect the system and keep things fair for everyone.
It doesn't make any sense here. Every single casino consider the wager of mini games (in-house type games) normally for the deposit rollover requirement, VIP ranking system and wager contest. I have played at a lot of casinos, never seen any of them have this type of unreasonable requirement for normal deposits. What type of unfair advantage will a player gain by playing the mini games?
Users are only allowed to lose their funds by playing those games, their wager isn't considered as valid. And it is a fraudulent activity if users play those games
.
Previously we saw Winna as a casino where wager in original games counted as 25% only towards VIP ranking system although they changed the rule eventually. I thought it was the worse one, but looking at casinok where original games has zero contribution towards VIP ranking system, this is the first casino with such a strange system. Playing original games can be considered as fraudulent activity does not make sense indeed unless players deposit, play original games with low risk the withdraw and these players do it multiple times. I can understand if it is considered as fraudulent activity because maybe the players just want to do money laundering only.
Just to clarify, we’re not saying that playing original/mini games is fraudulent by itself. The issue comes from how certain players use them — for example, repeatedly depositing, playing very low-risk strategies (like 1.01 bets), cycling volume, and withdrawing with minimal exposure. When this is done systematically, it can be used to bypass wagering logic, farm VIP systems, or in some cases raise AML concerns.
That’s the main reason behind the current setup — it’s more about preventing this type of behavior than limiting normal gameplay.
That said, we’re already reviewing this and working on adjustments, including allowing more contribution from these games, so the system feels more balanced for regular players.
--------------
Wagering requirements are ridiculous to me as well. If users can't take advantage of the promotional offers, then it doesn't make sense to offer something like this. Then why would gamblers choose this site instead of some other existing sites? Whether they have to cancel such controversial promotional offers or have to offer something attractive and reasonable.
Even I will say that the 40x wagering requirement on the cashback bonus could not be a bonus offer; and I also don't know how they were implying this as a bonus.
I also think that this type of bonus or offer can never be a positive promotion or marketing for a casino platform. Rather, it is more likely to be controversial negative marketing.
I also hope that Casinok will pay attention to this area and offer player friendly bonuses and bonuses instead of such anti-player type bonuses.
Thanks for suggestion , we will take it in consideration
------------------
Are there any bonuses for people that register on the site through BTCForum?
I’m interested to know if there’s an offer like this. They are already sponsoring poker tournaments and launch signature campaign so there’s a possibility for exclusive bonus for newly registered forum user.
Do you request source of funds at all? If yes what amount approx triggers the verification process?
If yes , do you accept betslips or betting winnings from other accounts as source of funds or you strictly need bank statements ?
Expect the worst on licensed casino when it comes to KYC. They will required this if needed to verify your account based on your activity.
Yes, we’re currently preparing a special bonus specifically for Bitcointalk users so they can test the platform properly.
We’ve seen some concerns here, and honestly, we want to change that perception. Casinok is very focused on rewarding active players we regularly provide different types of bonuses such as no-wager free cash, free spins, and other promos, through multiple channels.
The goal is to give users a fair chance to try the platform and see how it performs over time.
