Should Crypto Casinos Be Required to Publish Proof of Reserves?

[cryptoaddictchie]

Even the exchanges that we know customers keep funds is their custody hasn't been fair enough to allow people verify their proof of reserve. They only say they have and you know how much funds  customers entrust to these exchanges.

I don't see it necessarily for a casino to show any proof of reserve because you will end up gambling all your funds in the casino. Use a big and reputable casino that can afford to pay your wins no matter how big it is.

Maybe not all exchange doesnt shown their proof of reserved to customers but I admire Binance for being transparent on their Proof of reserve though they are the only one Im aware of doing this Im not sure about other top cexes.

But just like exchanges, its good if a casino would do this for their customers confidence but Im thinking its something related to law and regulations. Just like in  UK theres no need of proof reserve but they got a customer protection.

Probably depends on the country rules. In my own turf theres no need for it but they are required to have license before even can operate at tthe jurisdiction.

[Awaklara]

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

I'm not sure that publishing capital should be required for all new casinos. But actually, showing the bankroll a casino has is a positive way to convince new customers that they can pay out big wins. At least when they have events where you can win bets with high multipliers, customers will be confident that the casino has the money to pay out winnings, even if no one actually wins. It's a positive thing, but I don't think it's mandatory.

[Mahiyammahi]

I think if you see a new casino that doesn't actually have a license, but is doing well in the market, then the only way is to have Proof of Reserve. Since it doesn't have Proof of Reserve, if it doesn't, then I think it's better not to have that casino.

So when I come to a new casino, the first thing I try to do is find out if it has a license. Then if it has a license, I see what their user experience is like. Then I try to make a deposit at the new casino.

But if it's a casino without a license, then Proof of Reserve can be the only proof. Even then, I don't think Proof of Reserve is enough.

[Zlantann]

I think if you see a new casino that doesn't actually have a license, but is doing well in the market, then the only way is to have Proof of Reserve. Since it doesn't have Proof of Reserve, if it doesn't, then I think it's better not to have that casino.

So when I come to a new casino, the first thing I try to do is find out if it has a license. Then if it has a license, I see what their user experience is like. Then I try to make a deposit at the new casino.

But if it's a casino without a license, then Proof of Reserve can be the only proof. Even then, I don't think Proof of Reserve is enough.

Licenses are the standard for now, not Proof of Reserve. So gamblers normally check the licenses if they are recognized before committing to these casinos. We are fortunate to be in Bitcointalk, where there are many casinos. At least we have a few casinos that have proved to be reputable through years of quality and consistent service.

Having proof of funds is also not a bad idea because there are so many fraudulent casinos. With the assistance of AI, criminals can easily develop gambling platforms to defraud people. So there is a need to be cautious.

[SFR10]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it?

It'd certainly be nice to see new crypto casinos provide proof of reserves at the outset, but unless someone is willing to track movements to know the exact amount in real time, it won't help much in the long run.
^{- Because they usually set it up to make it easier for them to track and differentiate each user, it's one of those things that's easier said than done (unfortunately).}

[stadus]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it?

It'd certainly be nice to see new crypto casinos provide proof of reserves at the outset, but unless someone is willing to track movements to know the exact amount in real time, it won't help much in the long run.
^{- Because they usually set it up to make it easier for them to track and differentiate each user, it's one of those things that's easier said than done (unfortunately).}

Wouldnt it also be risky for them to publicly show how much they have in reserve? Hackers could get an idea of how much money is involved, follow the wallets and possibly make them a bigger target.

We already know how sophisticated hacking methods are these days. So for me, if showing reserves is not required by law or by their license, I dont think its necessary to expose everything to the public.

Whether its their reserve or their main funds, what matters more is that the casino is reputable and can pay its users when needed.

[knowngunman]

Licensing is not enough, but before they gain those licences, there is an average amount they also need to have in reserve before they can be granted that permission(Curaçao’s, about €100,000 and above, Melta MGA, €1m and above); even if it’s not made public, I believe such is usually verified.

But even if the casino comes out to show how much they have in reserve in public, who is going to verify that they actually own it unless the money is in a crypto wallet that can be tracked and verified?

Op proposal make sense but he probably doesn't know about this. Casinos can only obtain license if they meet the requirements. One of this requirements is evidence of financial stability. Although, this information are not made public for some reason but a licence casino is not operating on zero balance, they must meet the minimum required amount before starting operation.

I think we should worry about willingness to pay instead of demanding for proof of reserve. The proof of reserve gives confidence but it does not guarantee you'll get paid if you win. So whether they have the money or not, as long as they'll be able to pay out from whatever source, it's fine. Having the money is one thing but willing to pay is another. We should not focus on the former and ignore the latter.

[Botnake]

I think we should worry about willingness to pay instead of demanding for proof of reserve. The proof of reserve gives confidence but it does not guarantee you'll get paid if you win. So whether they have the money or not, as long as they'll be able to pay out from whatever source, it's fine. Having the money is one thing but willing to pay is another. We should not focus on the former and ignore the latter.

We cant really guess their willingness to pay, so I dont think thats something we should worry too much about. As mentioned, before getting a license they need to meet certain requirements. Passing those requirements already shows they are serious about operating the business, which means accepting bets and paying winning bets.

But of course anything can still happen. Just because a casino is reputable today does not mean it will stay that way forever.

So we should still be prepared in case something goes wrong. If the casino is licensed, at least we have somewhere to complain or go after them. The problem is that these cases can take a long time, and sometimes people just choose to forget about it instead.

[leea-1334]

Well casinos did it before,,, I played at least 5 and was also a sig wearer for one. If you feel there is a need and wonder why it is not done more well, users and gamblers themselves are at fault here for not demanding it,,, and playing at all the branded places and KYC places.

Op proposal make sense but he probably doesn't know about this. Casinos can only obtain license if they meet the requirements. One of this requirements is evidence of financial stability.

Funny enough all the ones I played at where full balance is transparent is not licensed

[SFR10]

Wouldnt it also be risky for them to publicly show how much they have in reserve? Hackers could get an idea of how much money is involved, follow the wallets and possibly make them a bigger target.

Yes, their hot wallets will be at risk and in addition to that, it's worth mentioning that the various AML tools that have popped up in the past few years will also enjoy having access to such information ^{[some of them tend to label gambling-related funds as dangerous or suspicious, so this eventually leads to more flagged transactions on crypto-related platforms that rely on them]}.

[TedMosby]

For me, it makes sense. I strongly agree with Proof of Reserves (or Proof of Liquidity, or whatever you want to call it) for casinos to prevent possible cases like the one you mentioned. I think making it transparent could also be a good form of marketing, like, "Come on, gamble on our website. Look, we're rich and can pay whatever your winnings are."

I also wonder why casinos don't do it. I assume it's for security reasons. I'm not only talking about the potential risks that can be caused by hackers, but IMO, there's also a potential risk from competitors. Smaller casinos can be eaten up easily by bigger casinos, especially those that offer sports betting. Because sports betting is not just a game between the player and the bookie, it can also be a game between one bookie and other bookies. Does that make sense?

[Taskford]

Licensing is not enough, but before they gain those licences, there is an average amount they also need to have in reserve before they can be granted that permission(Curaçao’s, about €100,000 and above, Melta MGA, €1m and above); even if it’s not made public, I believe such is usually verified.

But even if the casino comes out to show how much they have in reserve in public, who is going to verify that they actually own it unless the money is in a crypto wallet that can be tracked and verified?

Op proposal make sense but he probably doesn't know about this. Casinos can only obtain license if they meet the requirements. One of this requirements is evidence of financial stability. Although, this information are not made public for some reason but a licence casino is not operating on zero balance, they must meet the minimum required amount before starting operation.

I think we should worry about willingness to pay instead of demanding for proof of reserve. The proof of reserve gives confidence but it does not guarantee you'll get paid if you win. So whether they have the money or not, as long as they'll be able to pay out from whatever source, it's fine. Having the money is one thing but willing to pay is another. We should not focus on the former and ignore the latter.

Somehow what you have said really have a sense since the regulators often check if the casino they try to regulate does not operate having zero balance.

This is why somehow its good to look at their license especially if this one came from reputable license issuer.

Somehow if they prove that they have huge reserve, the next question is are they willing to pay their players if they win big? Since maybe who knows there are scam casino will use that huge reserve as a bait to scam those people tried to deposit huge amount on their casino.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

It is easier to pursue a legal case for a casino that has the funds and refuses to pay than a casino that cannot afford a maximum payout.

And that is the enough reason why it's good newbie gambler go for a reputable and reliable casino that have had a long period of success in the gambling industry, than just using a newly launched casino that might claim to have a specific amount as reserve in their account. Because to me, a clean record by a casino is enough reserve any newbie should need, inasmuch as their is no scam records about the casino on the Internet, despite it's many years of being in existence and operating as a crypto casino. And secondly, because of a casino reserve is why some usually limits a maximum amount a gambler could win per bet. Because if you could check the Sport book of some casinos, you will see that some has a maximum win of $1,000,000, whereas some offer as much as $50million and even half a $200million, depending on how much budget they have with them even without showcasing it's reserve to the public. Hence, in a nutshell, trust and clean record is what is most important than a mere reserve.

[Botnake]

Wouldnt it also be risky for them to publicly show how much they have in reserve? Hackers could get an idea of how much money is involved, follow the wallets and possibly make them a bigger target.

Yes, their hot wallets will be at risk and in addition to that, it's worth mentioning that the various AML tools that have popped up in the past few years will also enjoy having access to such information ^{[some of them tend to label gambling-related funds as dangerous or suspicious, so this eventually leads to more flagged transactions on crypto-related platforms that rely on them]}.

Thats another layer of risk. AML issues are more serious because if the government sees something suspicious, they can order the funds to be frozen and investigate the casino.

So for me, casinos should be careful not to disclose things that are not required. Security is more important than satisfying every request from the public.

At the end of the day, once a casino is properly licensed, it is already legally allowed to operate.

[Derekfunds]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it? Because I remember a case wherein a new casino what hit with a big win and they paid the winner in staggered and not in out get go.

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

Does it make sense?

I don't think telling people about their reserve or how much money they have in the beginning is necessary or wise to do because that can draw attention. I believe the wise thing to do is to make a condition that this is the maximum a gambler can win and once your potential winning exceed that amount the system won't bet the game for you and I have seen some casinos that has this as condituon and it is best instead of revealing the money they have.

[MArsland]

My personal view is that casinos don't need to publish Proof of reserves, The Gambler's concern for his winnings that the casino can't pay is still rare to find. Casinos that operate legally, licensed must have passed Financial testing, therefore there is a so called maximum win limit, so that the existing liquidity in the casino is able to pay the maximum winnings. As long as the casino manages good financial liquidity, it is not an obligation to have Proof of reserves.

[Hispo]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it? Because I remember a case wherein a new casino what hit with a big win and they paid the winner in staggered and not in out get go.

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

Does it make sense?

This is something we have actually talked about here on the gambling section of the forum before. It is quite an interesting topic and mostly my opinion remains unchanged.

I believe it is nice to see casinos being as transparent as possible and publish their reserves/bankroll on live or in a regular basis. But since regulators do not push casinos to do it as part of their licensing, this has become rather a gimmick used by some gambling services in order to gain trust from their gamblers from the beginning.

I like the idea, but it is not a deal-breaker to me.

[Yorubek]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it? Because I remember a case wherein a new casino what hit with a big win and they paid the winner in staggered and not in out get go.

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

Does it make sense?

I think it is good if the casino wants to reveal their reserves fund to everyone, but it is not mandatory, but by revealing the reserve, the gambler will get complete confidence while betting, they will not have extra worries about the money by winning a big betting, as a result, the number of gambler will continue to increase day by day. It is true that the amount of risk may increase by revealing reserve fund. However, if the casino can do something so that a gambler wins a big win, it is very important to be able to guarantee this. As a result, the casino's reputation will increase and the gambler's trust or confidence will increase.

[qurbanshah02]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it? Because I remember a case wherein a new casino what hit with a big win and they paid the winner in staggered and not in out get go.

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

Does it make sense?

I think it is good if the casino wants to reveal their reserves fund to everyone, but it is not mandatory, but by revealing the reserve, the gambler will get complete confidence while betting, they will not have extra worries about the money by winning a big betting, as a result, the number of gambler will continue to increase day by day. It is true that the amount of risk may increase by revealing reserve fund. However, if the casino can do something so that a gambler wins a big win, it is very important to be able to guarantee this. As a result, the casino's reputation will increase and the gambler's trust or confidence will increase.

If this happens, how will the system of those who have come with fraud work? Therefore, this thing should always be kept privacy because gambling dens also have some rules and they all work under them. But by making this thing clear, some people will know that they will play to a certain extent, so it is good, but this will reduce their earnings and gamblers will go to big gambling dens and small dens will close. So, those who are coming with fraud will have their guarantee weakened in this way. Although it is about good gambling dens, but those who are coming with fraud should be talked about because fraud has become very widespread, so we should think more about it. In my opinion, gambling dens are okay as they are, they do not need to show any reserve or fear. The system that is in place now is that fraud and all the standard ones are being tolerated, so they should be allowed to run.

[Grace333]

Should casino published how much money they have in the beginning? Sort of Proof-of-Reserves? So that gamblers knows that in a event of a big win, we know that they can cover it? Because I remember a case wherein a new casino what hit with a big win and they paid the winner in staggered and not in out get go.

I'm just thinking of this set-up as most of us says that licenses is no longer the standard for new casinos to have. They can easily apply for it and once they got roll the casino itself here but we don't know if they have enough bankroll in the beginning.

Does it make sense?

I don't think this is a good idea, casino is a business a like every other business their aim is profit making which obviously comes from thier bettors. However,  having to show their bettor their weaknesses of not having enough to pay for their big wiin will only reduce trust and keep the casino starving meanwhile, only the big casinos will get the vast majority of gamblers.
Another reason is, casinos are for entertainment so why should they disclose their total amount to you, they shouldn't be thought of outside the business class because they're part of it.