KYC VS digital verification ?

[DrBeer]

On the one hand we fulfill the KYC requirements of the regulatory authorities, but on the other hand we do not give them any data

How come you didnt gave any data if you also fulfill the bank requirements on the authorities. For me theres no difference at all cause authorities served as third party and has the information of users. Even they say they dont have access theres a chance that they have somehow access to it.

Like in the case of Snowden which he unveils what the US is doing and alledgely trying to cover that they are monitoring  users through their data privacy. Maybe the same case here.

That's right, and KYC isn't an issue for me, especially since I don't play at shady casinos with poor security But for many people, KYC is a problem-ranging from data leaks and disclosure to having their information handed over to complete "third parties". But with the government, it’s a bit different-we’ve been providing our information to it since birth, and the government issues most of our documents, so there’s a certain "trust" and "information symbiosis" at play here. Still, government and banking mechanisms for storing sensitive personal information are noticeably better and safer than "contracted companies for conducting KYC".
 

[asriloni]

I see no difference. When you are doing KYC, you're sending the platform your identity. When you're verifying through your banking app, it's the same like you're granting the platform to access the data stored in your banking account. Both are the same things.

Even if you argue bank can store your data better, there's no guarantee bank can't get leaked too. There will always be insider that may sell your infos.

That's why both verifications method posses the same risk.

[KTChampions]

I see no difference. When you are doing KYC, you're sending the platform your identity. When you're verifying through your banking app, it's the same like you're granting the platform to access the data stored in your banking account. Both are the same things.

Even if you argue bank can store your data better, there's no guarantee bank can't get leaked too. There will always be insider that may sell your infos.

That's why both verifications method posses the same risk.

But they're not the same thing. As I understand it, the difference is that in the classic case, you send all your information to each platform, meaning there's a risk of leakage from each platform, and the more platforms you use, the higher the risk. In the system under discussion, one platform (where the KYC has been passed) doesn't provide data, but rather a sort of confirmation that everything is OK with the data. Therefore, other platforms pose no risk of leaking your data, since they don't actually contain any.

[TopTort777]

There is a lot of talk about KYC as an unsafe procedure, for some people it is acceptable, for some people it is not, some people think it is really dangerous, etc. The essence of the problem boils down to the fact that the user undergoing KYC has to pass data to a third party, in videnomers phone, e-mail, copies/photos of documents, statements, etc. information. Yes, this does not carry the best connotation, more so in case of data theft, in case of inadequate security of the party conducting KYC.

Question to the participants of the topic - would you agree that instead of KYC there would be a procedure, for example, to confirm identity, without data transfer, for example, through banking applications ? For example, in Ukraine we have an effective model with identification through banking applications, i.e. through BankID identifier. Or through an official application certifying your identity. Again in Ukraine there is a state application “Diya”, which is some kind of digital passport, and it provides such a function. In this case, the identity is confirmed without transferring photos, videos, copies of documents, etc.
 
On the one hand we fulfill the KYC requirements of the regulatory authorities, but on the other hand we do not give them any data

Does this identification through banking applications means that user gets "into system" and further his financial activity will be monitored, besides given verification only for casino? In such identification what user sign for? Makes his bank account transparent for authorities? I try to get what will be the future of such identification? Default KYC = giving personal information for third party, and there is only some chance that my personal information will sneak somewhere else, be stolen, held not secured enough. Identification through banking app = I leave my funds transparent for bank or authorities, and besides deposit-withdrawal from casino, they monitor all my activity? Other question is what information will casino get from such identification? Amount on my balance and they would spam me later with tries to make another deposit, if they know I have money?

[emefewi]

Does this identification through banking applications means that user gets "into system" and further his financial activity will be monitored, besides given verification only for casino? In such identification what user sign for? Makes his bank account transparent for authorities? I try to get what will be the future of such identification? Default KYC = giving personal information for third party, and there is only some chance that my personal information will sneak somewhere else, be stolen, held not secured enough. Identification through banking app = I leave my funds transparent for bank or authorities, and besides deposit-withdrawal from casino, they monitor all my activity? Other question is what information will casino get from such identification? Amount on my balance and they would spam me later with tries to make another deposit, if they know I have money?

that's basically the tradeoff.
linking a banking app or digital ID to gambling doesn't just verify you for the casino, it also creates a clear link between your identity and that activity in the financial system. for some people that's not a big deal, but it can become a problem later depending on how strict your bank or compliance checks are.
there are also in-between solutions where platforms only push full verification when you hit higher withdrawal limits, so it's not always all-or-nothing.
personally i just avoid tying it to fiat altogether. sites like sportbet.one keep things crypto-only and skip kyc on withdrawals, so there's no direct link back to my bank account. the downside is obvious though — ui and features are usually a step behind regulated platforms.
in the end it's just a choice between convenience, privacy, and polish. you rarely get all three.

[alastantiger]

On the one hand we fulfill the KYC requirements of the regulatory authorities, but on the other hand we do not give them any data

What you are trying to say is a good way of replacing KYC but then they are going to be some difficulties as not every country will allow the use of those apps or those other form of identification, casinos has obligation to verify their customers and if they are not able to verify their customer themselves then it becomes a problem because they will be relying on third party to give them an accurate data just based on the image of the customer which then they can use that to verify that the persons that are using their casinos are legitimate. If anything wants to happen then the digital photos that was used for verification are fake the casino will be held responsible and that is why some casinos especially the well established ones won't want to buy into the idea of using those apps or other form of identification that you mention.

[davis196]

Question to the participants of the topic - would you agree that instead of KYC there would be a procedure, for example, to confirm identity, without data transfer, for example, through banking applications ? For example, in Ukraine we have an effective model with identification through banking applications, i.e. through BankID identifier. Or through an official application certifying your identity. Again in Ukraine there is a state application “Diya”, which is some kind of digital passport, and it provides such a function. In this case, the identity is confirmed without transferring photos, videos, copies of documents, etc.

I totally support a new process of verification, that would eventually replace the old KYC procedure. The problem is not all jurisdictions would accept such digital verification. What works in Ukraine won't work in other countries. There's no global agreement on a universal system of digital verification, where you create your digital passport once and you use it forever, instead of having to submit ID photos and face scans on a thousand different online casinos, crypto exchanges, trading platforms, bookies, apps ,etc. I guess that user convenience is not a top priority for all the government clerks and bureaucrats, who want our personal data, so that they could "fight money laundering and tax evasion".
The model you are talking about(BankID identifier) might not work in the crypto world, since the crypto industry is supposed to be "anti-bank".

[ralle14]

I don't mind the digital verification option if casinos require it from the start and maybe it's a one-time thing. But for now, I prefer KYC since the casinos i've been using only require the lowest level, unlike banks that'll ask a lot of specific information.

There might be a time when they'll require you to complete higher levels, but from the many casinos i've been playing at, only one of them made me go through that.

[coin-investor]

Question to the participants of the topic - would you agree that instead of KYC there would be a procedure, for example, to confirm identity, without data transfer, for example, through banking applications ? For example, in Ukraine we have an effective model with identification through banking applications, i.e. through BankID identifier. Or through an official application certifying your identity. Again in Ukraine there is a state application “Diya”, which is some kind of digital passport, and it provides such a function. In this case, the identity is confirmed without transferring photos, videos, copies of documents, etc.
 

Unfortunately, the gambling industry does not yet have this kind of method. I honestly think they should come up with one that is acceptable to all types of casinos.

But we also need to understand that a casino is a platform that continuously monitors its players' activity and seeks to ensure that the player is the original account owner and is not cheating the casino's bonuses and perks, which is why KYC verification in casinos is ongoing.

You don't do KYC, and you are safe as long as you are playing. The casino will ask for new verification just to make sure players passed their tracking system.

[Dunamisx]

would you agree that instead of KYC there would be a procedure, for example, to confirm identity, without data transfer, for example, through banking applications ? For example, in Ukraine we have an effective model with identification through banking applications, i.e. through BankID identifier.

All these makes no difference because the banks you may be considering here also have your kyc information with them, they are only protecting you from the bad actors that may try to fish out your information to their own satisfaction and personal use, but I can be the rest assure that using Banks identification number is still the same thing because they are also centralized financial institutions and government or any regulatory body can demand for our information from them, therefore the best option is to use a no kyc gambling casino.

[Orpichukwu]

All these makes no difference because the banks you may be considering here also have your kyc information with them, they are only protecting you from the bad actors that may try to fish out your information to their own satisfaction and personal use, but I can be the rest assure that using Banks identification number is still the same thing because they are also centralized financial institutions and government or any regulatory body can demand for our information from them, therefore the best option is to use a no kyc gambling casino.

This was the same concern which I raised before here in this thread yesterday. This bank verification number or whatever number is given by the government before you get them – there are some of your documents you need to submit that qualify you to get the number.

And if there is ever an upgrade for all citizens who the number is issued to, everyone will be asked to upgrade, just like what we have in my country, where a time came when all were asked to update their banking information with our national identification number. The bank gives you this number, and it's like a fingerprint to your document; anyone with it and the right data can still access your documents.

[asriloni]

I see no difference. When you are doing KYC, you're sending the platform your identity. When you're verifying through your banking app, it's the same like you're granting the platform to access the data stored in your banking account. Both are the same things.

Even if you argue bank can store your data better, there's no guarantee bank can't get leaked too. There will always be insider that may sell your infos.

That's why both verifications method posses the same risk.

But they're not the same thing. As I understand it, the difference is that in the classic case, you send all your information to each platform, meaning there's a risk of leakage from each platform, and the more platforms you use, the higher the risk. In the system under discussion, one platform (where the KYC has been passed) doesn't provide data, but rather a sort of confirmation that everything is OK with the data. Therefore, other platforms pose no risk of leaking your data, since they don't actually contain any.

A confirmation means we're granting the platform to access a token that linked to our data, which is containing all of our information. So the platform was also taking our data via API integration connected to our bank account. This is why i think it's pretty similar.

The only different is manual KYC wants our hard data, while granting an access is giving them our digital data.

[Hispo]

On paper sounds good, as it theory there would be less of our personal information on the hands of third parties and handlers of information on the internet.
But unfortunately, for such new standard to be widely accepted by casinos, bookies and exchanges, it would require a new legislation in the most important crypto markets of the planet.
It would also imply governments would work even closer with service providers, in order for those services to verify the identity of the number holder.

I have come to the conclusion our current model of KYC is just the easiest way for services on the internet to comply with regulation, without having to invest a lot of time and effort in infrastructure.
As long as the general public is comfortable with our current KYC model, lawmakers won't do anything to change and improve protection over our data.

[Pandu Geddon]

For local gambling sites that are managed and supervised by the state, it might be possible. All the data is actually already stored, and checking through a certain ID can already verify it. But for gambling sites that operate online and are used by customers in many countries, they might face problems with the database if they do not collect and verify it themselves or cooperate with third parties.

[o48o]

There is a lot of talk about KYC as an unsafe procedure, for some people it is acceptable, for some people it is not, some people think it is really dangerous, etc. The essence of the problem boils down to the fact that the user undergoing KYC has to pass data to a third party, in videnomers phone, e-mail, copies/photos of documents, statements, etc. information. Yes, this does not carry the best connotation, more so in case of data theft, in case of inadequate security of the party conducting KYC.

Question to the participants of the topic - would you agree that instead of KYC there would be a procedure, for example, to confirm identity, without data transfer, for example, through banking applications ? For example, in Ukraine we have an effective model with identification through banking applications, i.e. through BankID identifier. Or through an official application certifying your identity. Again in Ukraine there is a state application “Diya”, which is some kind of digital passport, and it provides such a function. In this case, the identity is confirmed without transferring photos, videos, copies of documents, etc.
 

On the one hand we fulfill the KYC requirements of the regulatory authorities, but on the other hand we do not give them any data

That's not really about KYC vs digital verification, but rather an Automatic verification vs Manual verification.

And sure, i am all for it. And that's actually KYC as well, because it's literally filling the same legal requirement of any financial institution, which is "Know Your Customer". Only difference is in how it's done, and with bank id verification has better data protection.

I am baffled how financial institutions can't cooperate with this, as i am sure they would both safe money and it would clean them from any wrong doing when it comes to letting in people with fake ids. Because it wouldn't be their concern anymore.

[Findingnemo]

I don't see any difference, even if we use the official app from government or banking channels for the verification process still they have to share the data with the casino or the exchange to verify the credentials that means the data can be stored somewhere and even the banks can use your data as they wish which is the reason why we get random calls for credit card offers and such.

There is a very significant difference in this. In the case of the Ukrainian Diya or Bank ID you do not need to upload a copy of your passport or a selfie to use each separate casino or crypto exchange. Through this thirdparty or betting sites get a digital confirmation like "Yes, this person is original and verified" - just in one place. But the exchanges or casinos will not be able to use or store your main original documents in any way. And in the old-fashioned KYC system dozens of sites store your sensitive scanned copies. So, if you compare the risk of data being hacked or leaked in this modern way is zero percent.

I am not sure exactly how it works, but as far as I know the casino has to cross check the person and the document belongs to the same one and for that they need to have the document and what we are doing is just giving the authentication to access the KYC details from the server instead of uploading it every time so it gives convenient but doesn't really break the process of them accessing our ID details.

[cryptoaddictchie]

But with the government, it’s a bit different-we’ve been providing our information to it since birth, and the government issues most of our documents, so there’s a certain "trust" and "information symbiosis" at play here. Still, government and banking mechanisms for storing sensitive personal information are noticeably better and safer than "contracted companies for conducting KYC".

Actually thats make sense. But I wont hand over more information to them cause in our country their security pretty much sucks compared to private firms. But on the second thought handling out information to them means fine compared to a private one since its yoir government and this is the least you expect that will screw you over some data.

[Achalugo BTC]

I would go for digital verification as well, because in this case, you don't need to undergo kyc verification every time you want to get in in a casino as you can easily swipe it in their terminal and go thru. It will also lessen the entities holding your kyc details and with this, only the government has actually the possession of your personal details.

The less number of entities holding your personal details, the better. Because it is prone to potential threats online or inside job. We don't know where our info will end up with. So much better if you limit your exposure as much as possible. As no one will take care of yourself but you.

If we don't learn how to keep our privacy well, we will be open to danger,   easily, our data is our defense, so we have to keep it safe from as you said and you are  right about it, no one will take care of you but you. That is why one need to be careful because if any damage occur, it will be difficult to fix it. So, before giving out your information, be sure of the site before giving out all your information to be more on the safer side, just as they said, prevention is better than cure.

[michellee]

That depend on the casino because we as users could only follow the rules. If they changing the rules, users could only follows if they want to still play on that casinos but if not, they can search for other casinos and follow the rules.

But I don't want to share my Bank data to them as that is crucial and will choose KYC as usual. If this method apply to many casinos and no chances for me to do KYC as usual, maybe that is the time I should quit gambling and wait for the next news about gambling industry.

[andreitarkovsky]

From testing various platforms, the ones that handle this best allow no-KYC play up to a threshold ($1,000–$2,000/month) and only require verification above that. Any platform claiming unlimited no-KYC is a red flag — if they refuse to pay on a big win citing AML compliance, you have no recourse.
Put together a breakdown of which crypto casinos actually deliver on this: cryptoslothub.com/en/casino-without-kyc/