Should Crypto Casinos Be Required to Publish Proof of Reserves?

[Coyster]

If you are looking for a guarantee that winnings would be paid out by a casino, then even if their reserve is public, it does not guarantee that it would. They could have enough money to cover a large winning, but they wouldn't want to. I am not against casinos publishing what they have in reserves, but it is not something i would look out for, nor do i think is so important.

[Leahized]

Yeah for me it makes sense especially for new casinos what ever they say like we have 10million$ etcetera but that is not enough and a proper proof of verification should be needed . Also that fund should be seperated from the casino's operating money. I know no casino can keep enough cash to cover every possible jackpot but there should at least any insurance or financial backing. As the luck factor and house edge is also available which make it a little challenging for everyone to win a jackpot in a casino's but sometimes a player's luck can be exceptional  and a new casino should be financially prepared for that possibility.

I think, for this you should continue to play at a reliable casino. Because I have never heard that casinos publish statmanet of their bankroll. However, any gambler don’t deposits large amount of money without observing new casinos. And there is no chance of getting Jackpot in the new casino. And if a gambler gets lucky for jackpot, he is unlikely to get that winning money. I'm sure most casinos will refuse to pay, except the reputable ones. So not based on casino bankroll, it is better to select our good casinos before gambling.

[hedgeh0g]

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 would be the most correct way for any casino to show everyone that they are honest and that they will pay a certain multiplier without any problems. And at the same time, this online casino will also have the funds to pay out winnings to other lucky players without any problems. What if two or three lucky players get the maximum multiplier in the slots at once? Moreover, what if all online casino slot players receive the maximum multiplier at the same time? I believe that this is dangerous for any casino, but at the same time, they are obliged, being respectable casinos, to withstand such a financial test.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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?

Local license may not be standard, but a casino should have a valid license to operate. If a casino doesn't have one, I'm not sure I can play in it. I believe it is one of the requirements for a valid license which is to demonstrate good funding to operate and pay players winnings.

I don't know, but is that part of the requirements being skipped by licensing authorities now for some casinos?
I hope this is not about Betmocco because they never even had a license in the beginning.

A casino can still publish this proof and still exit scam. It is not necessarily a guarantee for integrity.

[Curious T]

For me, the casino should have a maximum payout amount and shouldn't allow people to stake or get odds that exceed it. I believe that part of the requirement for the license is a minimum amount they should have. I don't think it should be mandatory for casinos to show how much they have. That will just give a false sense of security because that won't stop a casino that wants to scam or a casino that doesn't want to pay their players. If you have doubts, simply stick to a trustworthy casino instead of trying out new casinos. A casino that allows people to get a potential win they cannot pay is already a red flag. Any amount of money a casino allows you to bet for, they should be able to pay it.

[qwertyup23]

If casino do post their current proof of reserves, I wholeheartedly think that nothing would change. The reason is simple- gambling companies have the tendency of faking or at least controlling the amount of reserves that they have.

I also think that by posting their reserves, nothing would still change. It also doesn't mean it equate to being genuine as new gambling companies can easily fake such numbers. In fact, it can have the opposite effect- people falling from the said reserves as they make this the sole factor in determining whether they would commit to it or not.

In conclusion, while I do admire the attempt of such gambling companies on doing everything just to make their services genuine, still, there are other factors that can gain and established their respective trust.

[stadus]

For me, the casino should have a maximum payout amount and shouldn't allow people to stake or get odds that exceed it.

They should know what they are doing. We are talking about casinos that operate 24/7, and one serious mistake could affect their whole operation.

For me, theres no need to know exactly how much money they have in reserve. If they accept a bet, then they should be able to pay it.

The licensing factor alone already tells us something. If a casino has a proper license, then we can assume they passed certain requirements and can afford to operate the business. So as long as the casino is reputable and properly licensed, I dont think we need to worry too much about seeing their reserves. That already helps minimize the risk.

[r_victory]

Does it make sense?

It would be interesting if this were implemented. Here in Brazil, regulated online betting sites are required to maintain minimum reserves of R$ 5 million (approximately US$ 1 million). This amount serves as a dedicated guarantee to ensure the payment of winnings to gamblers in the event of insolvency.

Funds deposited by users are held in transactional accounts separate from the company's operating cash flow. To obtain an operating license, an online casino must demonstrate fully paid-up share capital and net equity of at least R$ 30 million (around US$ 6 million).

Law regulating online sports betting in Brazil: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/lei/l14790.htm

[Agbe]

As for me it is not necessary or good for the casino company to publish their finance for the public to see and there is no need for that. And all what I can see if they don't have enough funds to start up the business, they should set a withdrawal limit and that should be in the registration form or pop up message for all visitors of the casino to be aware that there is a limit of withdrawal in the casino. And for that everyone will be adjusted to the limit and only interested gamblers will visit the casino.

[Zlantann]

If you are looking for a guarantee that winnings would be paid out by a casino, then even if their reserve is public, it does not guarantee that it would. They could have enough money to cover a large winning, but they wouldn't want to. I am not against casinos publishing what they have in reserves, but it is not something i would look out for, nor do i think is so important.

If the public knows that these casinos have enough to pay out a big win in a reserve and refuse to pay it. It will become clear that they intentionally don't want to pay. But when no document or audit report shows that they have or don't have enough to cover wins, it becomes complicated. Some fraudulent casinos might start finding faults in users' bets because they don't have enough to pay out wins. Publishing proof of reserves will help gamblers know financially healthy casinos.

[Zadicar]

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?

The website i do like is having that transparency when it comes to the entire funds+investors funds is on Bustabit, and then i havent see any casinos do show off this when it comes to transparency. Yes, it would be understandable that it is that some sort of privacy considering that this is that talking about showing off the entire funds that they do have but at the same time it could really also give out that confidence into its potential players that they can be able to pay whenever someone do make out some big win rather than ending up on getting denied just because they cant be able to pay up such amount. Well, now there's no way we can be able to see those numbers but it would be impossible for those reputable ones that they would be putting up their reputation at risks on not paying someone. This is why they do have that max bet for them to be able to blown out their entire funds just in case there's someone hit up the jackpot.

[bangjoe]

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've asked the same thing as you, and I think this is necessary as the regulation given to exchanges where they must have Proof of Reserve so that users know that they have funds/assets, and this should also be applied to casinos to review their strength or assets both small and large casinos.
But I doubt that until today no casino has shown it because on the other hand there is no regulation that requires it to make such reports, usually the casino in this case is closed before the regulation tells them to do so just like the case with KYC and other rules.

[MainIbem]

If you are looking for a guarantee that winnings would be paid out by a casino, then even if their reserve is public, it does not guarantee that it would. They could have enough money to cover a large winning, but they wouldn't want to. I am not against casinos publishing what they have in reserves, but it is not something i would look out for, nor do i think is so important.

You're right, any casino can show off their reserve and fail to pay up a gamblers winnings, showing that off doesn't guarantee trust, it can only be guarantee if the money is escrowed with an external body, like a licence company that would pay off winners if there's a case of customer scam by the casino. Yeah publishing their reserve shouldn't be mandatory since it doesn't guarantee that they'll pay a winning it should be a thing of choice.

[Frankolala]

If you are looking for a guarantee that winnings would be paid out by a casino, then even if their reserve is public, it does not guarantee that it would. They could have enough money to cover a large winning, but they wouldn't want to. I am not against casinos publishing what they have in reserves, but it is not something i would look out for, nor do i think is so important.

Of course, that's the fact. Also, it doesn't still prevent scam casinos to pop up from nowhere, because they believe that if they can show proof of reserve, customers will gain trust in them and gamble with big amount of money and when they've gotten what they want, they will just pull an exit scam. Therefore, proof of reserve wouldn't change anything.

[Moreno233]

This is a very nice idea that will give gamblers confidence jn using the casino. But I doubt cainos will willing share this information to the public unless they are mandated by law. On the other hand, even if casinos decide to share this information publicly, it does not stop casinos operated by scammers to steal people money through crooked means. I think the reputation of the casino is more important than providing proof of reserve.

[Renampun]

They simply won't be willing to do so because they've already undergone a thorough audit process before receiving their license, so they no longer need to publish proof of reserves to the public.. especially since casinos are typically private companies and are not required to disclose every detail of their financial operations to the public. So, your idea simply won't be welcomed by casinos, even though it's a good thing for players to know the casino's financial condition.

[Findingnemo]

If the casino is new and trying to build a reputation can actually show how much money they have in their bankroll which can bring more trust on an untested platform but having reserves doesn't prove that they won't scam, it just tells that the one who operates the platform also have the money to pay.

But making their whole bankroll for public can be dangerous to the casino, it will attract more hack attempts on the platform which will increase the cost of operating the casino.

[uneng]

It sounds like a good measure for casinos which still don't have built trust and reputation inside gambling industry, so they can show proof they have the funds to pay jackpot winners and whales. This move could help them boosting their traffic and volume of deposits, since more gamblers will feel comfortable dropping larger sums of money in the platform. However, the casino to solely have the money doesn't ensure 100% guarantee that winners are going to be paid for winnings, because the casino's balance can be used only as bait to lure gamblers into the platform.

[Pi-network314159]

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.

Does it make sense?

If  you where in the shoes of the casino, will you identify yourself by showing your balance? Of course no, I believe no one will ever like to do that. Most people or casino don't have enough money to start casino business but are eager to start, when they start they expect toake profit and pay the winners, but if the winner wins early enough with a big fund, they will not pay him at once because it will be liquidation to the casino, so the only thing to do is to pay bit by bit till they got enough money to pay you back complete. So that is there weakness, a new business will not showcase their weakness to you, if not Their trust will reduce value.

[YOSHIE]

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.

Maybe the suggestion of reserve funds for crypto casinos as a whole is a good idea, from the positive side of course users can judge that the casino looks fair and transparent for its users, for me the ideal would be to win like that, as OP Said there is a payout guarantee that the casino operates has enough assets for each winner.

However, there is a challenge for online casinos operating in tax-free jurisdictions, when casinos publish their reserve funds every licensed casino has oversight so it cannot escape taxation, for this reason, many casinos that we see operate in tax-free areas, although there are casinos that have to show an initial balance, perhaps not the full amount, taxes make casinos reluctant to show larger reserve funds.