🎰 Spin.io ★ Fast Withdrawals ★ No KYC ★ VIP Transfer ★ 100% up to $100,000

[Bushdark]

They are open about it in the terms and conditions. That's the point I am trying to make. The problem is that people don't read the T&Cs.  

I wouldn't call out anyone for failing to read the Terms of Service of any platform, i mean, it can be a very long and time-consuming read. But i think people should read the important parts of the T&C, such parts include, but not limited to, the privacy policy, limitations of liability, deposits & withdrawals, etc.

It is the choice of gamblers to decide if they are going to read the terms of a casino or they are going to ignore it.
It is when problem arises that is related to breaking of the casino TOS that people can now judge if it's was the casino that was wrong or the player that complained about the casino freezing or locking his account.

I even read on the forum sometime ago that people now use AI to summarize T&C, it is not something i have personally done, i just read the parts i consider most important. But if one can use AI to get the key points of any platform, then they should do so.

It is better to do the right time now by checking what could be wrong with a casino TOS before falling to their trap.
The use of AI can come in when the player doesn't really understand the TOS of the casino very well. At least that can help to break down those rules that need to be observed.

[rxdtrip]

Of course we are open to it, feel free to DM me telegram of holydarkness and can reach out there and discuss the case a bit deeper and I can explain why we reason the way we did.

I know it looks harsh, like I also told rxdtrip but there is more information that meets the eye although I dont want to share it in a public forum. Happy for a mediator to take a look and see what he/she thinks.

With the information given to us from the provider and checks we did, and the T&C that we are abiding with we are confident its the right call. People make mistakes too though, so if we did wrong here we are happy to amend but for now we stand by our decision.

I’m completely fine with @holydarkness taking a look at the case.

Everything on my side is already public in the complaint thread - bet history, deposits and emails. You can send him whatever evidence you have.

My position is the same: I just want the original $710 deposit returned.

Hopefully holydarkness can review it and we can wrap this up.

I'll take these statements as written agreement to a binding ADR attempt made on CH. Know that with this, both parties agreed that they will not seek other resolution attempt from other ADR to gain other verdict, and that my words is final and both parties has to bow to it. My words for both will be that I stake my reputation to mediate as fairly as I can, based on what I witnessed.

rxdtrip, please create a complaint on ContestHunters, my sig will bring you directly to the dispute page.
Spin.io, my TG username will be sent to you shortly after this, please guard them with proper care, I had to change username because my former was rather easy to be guessed, and I got flooded by behind-the-screen request of mediation, that I have to change to someting more obscure.

As per the binding agreement above, a case on CH has been lodged, both parties has been inquired about their side, and a verdict has been made - https://contesthunters.com/disputes/29

Like before, in my attempt to integrate CH as reliable and transparent ADR that is walking side-by-side with the forum, I am open for discussion regarding the verdict made. However, the call has been rubberstamped and can't be changed, at least not in the future that I can see of, unless an incredible circumstance happens.

To give context, for those who read the case on CH, I asked twice whether or not VPN is involved. It is not because VPN is prohibited or not, rather because evidence submitted by Spin [private details are omitted from me, so rest assured that they still honor privacy policy] showed two different countries by complainant, that its accuracy is confirmed by player as he acknowledged the use of proxy for his browsing activity.

With that confirmed, the casino's defense that the player played from restricted teritory, of which, as per a quick google search, it is also confirmed that the player violated their term [which worded very beautifully, if I may say, as it shift the burden of restricted country from their side, like usual casino does, to the players]:

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/04/Ue3I9j.jpg

I think one important part of my complaint is still unanswered.

Even if we assume I breached the residency rule, where exactly do the T&C say Spin can confiscate my original $710 deposit for that?

I’m not disputing the $181 winnings here. I’m only asking for my deposit back.

Clause 9 itself talks about confiscating winnings and bonuses, while separately mentioning the return of the remaining deposit. So what exact rule allows them to keep the deposit in this case?

[holydarkness]

I think one important part of my complaint is still unanswered.

Even if we assume I breached the residency rule, where exactly do the T&C say Spin can confiscate my original $710 deposit for that?

I’m not disputing the $181 winnings here. I’m only asking for my deposit back.

Clause 9 itself talks about confiscating winnings and bonuses, while separately mentioning the return of the remaining deposit. So what exact rule allows them to keep the deposit in this case?

As it come to my awareness that you've your own SA thread, I am moving the discussion there.

But to brush it here, it's in the opening of point 2 and the end of point 9

[rxdtrip]

I think one important part of my complaint is still unanswered.

Even if we assume I breached the residency rule, where exactly do the T&C say Spin can confiscate my original $710 deposit for that?

I’m not disputing the $181 winnings here. I’m only asking for my deposit back.

Clause 9 itself talks about confiscating winnings and bonuses, while separately mentioning the return of the remaining deposit. So what exact rule allows them to keep the deposit in this case?

As it come to my awareness that you've your own SA thread, I am moving the discussion there.

But to brush it here, it's in the opening of point 2 and the end of point 9

I see the clause in point 2 now.

But point 9 specifically distinguishes winnings/bonuses from the deposit and says the remaining deposit may be returned depending on the circumstances.

So my question is still: what circumstances in my case justified confiscating the $710 deposit itself, rather than just the winnings?


Long story short, for anyone wondering: the casino is now relying on gambling restrictions in my country of origin and in the country I was playing from as the reason for confiscating my deposit.

Just a reminder - initially they accused me of arbitrage/abusive betting. Now they’ve shifted to a completely different issue concerning jurisdiction/residency to justify keeping my deposit and freerolling me.

[holydarkness]

As it come to my awareness that you've your own SA thread, I am moving the discussion there.

But to brush it here, it's in the opening of point 2 and the end of point 9

I see the clause in point 2 now.

But point 9 specifically distinguishes winnings/bonuses from the deposit and says the remaining deposit may be returned depending on the circumstances.

So my question is still: what circumstances in my case justified confiscating the $710 deposit itself, rather than just the winnings?

Again, I advise you to move your discussion to your own SA thread instead of continue being OOT here, now that you have your own thread. But if this closes the discussion:



You misunderstood point 9 as privilege and option for every ToS breaker instead of Casino's own privilege and entitlement.

Clause 9, implies that the casino might consider refunding remaining balance of deposit depending on circumstances that they deemed fit. This is why I said earlier in my closing statement that "However, the call has been rubberstamped and can't be changed, at least not in the future that I can see of, unless an incredible circumstance happens."


Edit for your edit: Actually... no, yes they accuse you of abusive betting behavior too, but explaining that here will be a hearsay from me because I can't provide concrete evidence to back up my words, and people have to take me at face value, and not without stating their detection algorithm if push come to shove.

So, it's easier to point out the provable one: that you bet on restricted territory, on both data they have shown me. Where I can easily mention without any worries to reveal company secret which conversation about is being privileged under confidentiality. Namely: the country.

[rxdtrip]

As it come to my awareness that you've your own SA thread, I am moving the discussion there.

But to brush it here, it's in the opening of point 2 and the end of point 9

I see the clause in point 2 now.

But point 9 specifically distinguishes winnings/bonuses from the deposit and says the remaining deposit may be returned depending on the circumstances.

So my question is still: what circumstances in my case justified confiscating the $710 deposit itself, rather than just the winnings?

Again, I advise you to move your discussion to your own SA thread instead of continue being OOT here, now that you have your own thread. But if this closes the discussion:

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/04/Ue3hXo.jpg https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/04/Ue3LBa.jpg

You misunderstood point 9 as privilege and option for every ToS breaker instead of Casino's own privilege and entitlement.

Clause 9, implies that the casino might consider refunding remaining balance of deposit depending on circumstances that they deemed fit. This is why I said earlier in my closing statement that "However, the call has been rubberstamped and can't be changed, at least not in the future that I can see of, unless an incredible circumstance happens."


Edit for your edit: Actually... no, yes they accuse you of abusive betting behavior too, but explaining that here will be a hearsay from me because I can't provide concrete evidence to back up my words, and people have to take me at face value, and not without stating their detection algorithm if push come to shove.

So, it's easier to point out the provable one: that you bet on restricted territory, on both data they have shown me. Where I can easily mention without any worries to reveal company secret which conversation about is being privileged under confidentiality. Namely: the country.

Fair enough, I understand your interpretation of points 2 and 9.

My issue is that Spin knew my IP/location from the start. There was no geoblock or warning, yet they accepted two separate deposits totaling $710 and allowed me to place bets from that location.

They also completed my KYC. Only after the bets were settled did jurisdiction/residency become the reason for confiscating the entire balance.

That is exactly why I see this as a freeroll.

I’m continuing to post and reply here because not many gamblers check the Scam Accusations section, and I want more people to be aware of how Spin.io handles cases involving confiscation of player deposits.

[holydarkness]

Fair enough, I understand your interpretation of points 2 and 9.

My issue is that Spin knew my IP/location before I even deposited. There was no geoblock, no warning, and they still allowed me to deposit and place bets from that location.

They also completed my KYC. Only after the bets were settled did jurisdiction/residency become the reason for confiscating the entire balance.

That is exactly why I see this as a freeroll.

I’m continuing to post and reply here because not many gamblers check the Scam Accusations section, and I want more people to be aware of how Spin.io handles cases involving confiscation of player deposits.

Pretty much sure [and by it, I mean I come visit the page again and click "register", and have the screenshot of it in this device] that upon registration, you ticked a box with "I've read and agreed to the ToS" and its synonyms. The burden to read country restriction as well as other terms of the service shifted to you the second you ticked the box and click register. Plus, it is a very known practice amongst gamblers who play fair and doesn't wish to be freerolled to at least check casino's page of restricted country, to be sure they're eligible and there won't be future complication arise from their residency status.

Why don't you?

[rxdtrip]

Fair enough, I understand your interpretation of points 2 and 9.

My issue is that Spin knew my IP/location before I even deposited. There was no geoblock, no warning, and they still allowed me to deposit and place bets from that location.

They also completed my KYC. Only after the bets were settled did jurisdiction/residency become the reason for confiscating the entire balance.

That is exactly why I see this as a freeroll.

I’m continuing to post and reply here because not many gamblers check the Scam Accusations section, and I want more people to be aware of how Spin.io handles cases involving confiscation of player deposits.

Pretty much sure [and by it, I mean I come visit the page again and click "register", and have the screenshot of it in this device] that upon registration, you ticked a box with "I've read and agreed to the ToS" and its synonyms. The burden to read country restriction as well as other terms of the service shifted to you the second you ticked the box and click register. Plus, it is a very known practice amongst gamblers who play fair and doesn't wish to be freerolled to at least check casino's page of restricted country, to be sure they're eligible and there won't be future complication arise from their residency status.

Why don't you?

Fair point, I missed that restriction in the ToS.

But my point is simple: Spin knew my IP/location, accepted two deposits, let me bet, and completed my KYC.

My location only became a problem when I tried to withdraw part of my money.

If they had blocked me or returned my deposit, fine. Instead they accepted the action first and used the jurisdiction issue only when it was time to pay out.

That’s why I call it a freeroll.

[holydarkness]

Pretty much sure [and by it, I mean I come visit the page again and click "register", and have the screenshot of it in this device] that upon registration, you ticked a box with "I've read and agreed to the ToS" and its synonyms. The burden to read country restriction as well as other terms of the service shifted to you the second you ticked the box and click register. Plus, it is a very known practice amongst gamblers who play fair and doesn't wish to be freerolled to at least check casino's page of restricted country, to be sure they're eligible and there won't be future complication arise from their residency status.

Why don't you?

Fair point, I missed that restriction in the ToS.

But my point is simple: Spin knew my IP/location, accepted two deposits, let me bet, and completed my KYC.

My location only became a problem when I tried to withdraw part of my money.

If they had blocked me or returned my deposit, fine. Instead they accepted the action first and used the jurisdiction issue only when it was time to pay out.

That’s why I call it a freeroll.

Not quite right.

Spin knew your IP/location after they accepted your deposit and let you bet and completed your KYC. I will boldy assume the casino caters hundreds if not thousands of people daily, and they can't monitor residency one by one. That is the reason why they shift the burden of verifying own eligibility to the player, as they can't do it themselves.

It is only after you tripped their detection with the abusive strategy that the domino effect happened, they asked for KYC, they looked into their log of country, etc.

[rxdtrip]

Pretty much sure [and by it, I mean I come visit the page again and click "register", and have the screenshot of it in this device] that upon registration, you ticked a box with "I've read and agreed to the ToS" and its synonyms. The burden to read country restriction as well as other terms of the service shifted to you the second you ticked the box and click register. Plus, it is a very known practice amongst gamblers who play fair and doesn't wish to be freerolled to at least check casino's page of restricted country, to be sure they're eligible and there won't be future complication arise from their residency status.

Why don't you?

Fair point, I missed that restriction in the ToS.

But my point is simple: Spin knew my IP/location, accepted two deposits, let me bet, and completed my KYC.

My location only became a problem when I tried to withdraw part of my money.

If they had blocked me or returned my deposit, fine. Instead they accepted the action first and used the jurisdiction issue only when it was time to pay out.

That’s why I call it a freeroll.

Not quite right.

Spin knew your IP/location after they accepted your deposit and let you bet and completed your KYC. I will boldy assume the casino caters hundreds if not thousands of people daily, and they can't monitor residency one by one. That is the reason why they shift the burden of verifying own eligibility to the player, as they can't do it themselves.

It is only after you tripped their detection with the abusive strategy that the domino effect happened, they asked for KYC, they looked into their log of country, etc.

That’s the distinction though. Spin had my IP from the moment I accessed the site. Whether someone manually reviewed it at that time is a different question.

They didn’t need to monitor players one by one to block restricted locations. Yet there was no geoblock or warning, and they accepted two deposits and my bets.

And as you say yourself, the jurisdiction issue only came up after they flagged my betting activity. That’s exactly my point - it was not a problem until they started looking for a reason not to pay.

As for the “abusive strategy”, so far that remains an accusation without any evidence shown publicly.


The thread title literally says “No KYC”, yet once I tried to withdraw, KYC, IP logs and residency suddenly became central to the case 

[holydarkness]

That’s the distinction though. Spin had my IP from the moment I accessed the site. Whether someone manually reviewed it at that time is a different question.

They didn’t need to monitor players one by one to block restricted locations. Yet there was no geoblock or warning, and they accepted two deposits and my bets.

And as you say yourself, the jurisdiction issue only came up after they flagged my betting activity. That’s exactly my point - it was not a problem until they started looking for a reason not to pay.

As for the “abusive strategy”, so far that remains an accusation without any evidence shown publicly.

I'll appreciate if you stop trying to spin the narrative here.

The order of the situation was: you signed up, agreeing to the ToS of restricted region, quite possibly not knowing it because your intent is to "freeroll" the casino with the abusive betting, then you got caught, then they found out that you're not eligible due to your own country's law. To put it in a perspective:

You agreed to ToS that shifted the knowledge to you.
You still choose to play.
And you abuse their system.
Their alarm got triggered.
They confiscate your account.
They found out you're also from restricted region.
They decide to confiscate without returning principal.

They are not looking for a reason not to pay. The "reason to not pay" come to their own table in form of alarm being triggered by your own detrimental betting behavior. Perhaps if you play it slower... or not so greedy with the betting amount or player amounts or whatever that is that trigger their system... ahh well.

As for showing the abusive strategy publicly, you can rest assured that it is not for you to mind. It will not come out to the public, ever, because --like other casinos-- revealing such information will only ruin their expensive algorithm and teach future abusers how to avoid detection.

Fortunately, you and the casino has agreed to enter a binding mediation with ContestHunters. They've explained, I've seen the evidence of it, all in private, and I draw conclusion based on that and the fact that you're actively breaking country ToS.

End of story, case closed. I believe you've been made abundantly understand what happened. You can insist on this and that, but you're bound by verdict, and this shall be my last comment for you. The next reply I give to this thread or to your SA thread is if other asked around the situation of the verdict.

[rxdtrip]

That’s the distinction though. Spin had my IP from the moment I accessed the site. Whether someone manually reviewed it at that time is a different question.

They didn’t need to monitor players one by one to block restricted locations. Yet there was no geoblock or warning, and they accepted two deposits and my bets.

And as you say yourself, the jurisdiction issue only came up after they flagged my betting activity. That’s exactly my point - it was not a problem until they started looking for a reason not to pay.

As for the “abusive strategy”, so far that remains an accusation without any evidence shown publicly.

I'll appreciate if you stop trying to spin the narrative here.

The order of the situation was: you signed up, agreeing to the ToS of restricted region, quite possibly not knowing it because your intent is to "freeroll" the casino with the abusive betting, then you got caught, then they found out that you're not eligible due to your own country's law. To put it in a perspective:

You agreed to ToS that shifted the knowledge to you.
You still choose to play.
And you abuse their system.
Their alarm got triggered.
They confiscate your account.
They found out you're also from restricted region.
They decide to confiscate without returning principal.

They are not looking for a reason not to pay. The "reason to not pay" come to their own table in form of alarm being triggered by your own detrimental betting behavior. Perhaps if you play it slower... or not so greedy with the betting amount or player amounts or whatever that is that trigger their system... ahh well.

As for showing the abusive strategy publicly, you can rest assured that it is not for you to mind. It will not come out to the public, ever, because --like other casinos-- revealing such information will only ruin their expensive algorithm and teach future abusers how to avoid detection.

Fortunately, you and the casino has agreed to enter a binding mediation with ContestHunters. They've explained, I've seen the evidence of it, all in private, and I draw conclusion based on that and the fact that you're actively breaking country ToS.

End of story, case closed. I believe you've been made abundantly understand what happened. You can insist on this and that, but you're bound by verdict, and this shall be my last comment for you. The next reply I give to this thread or to your SA thread is if other asked around the situation of the verdict.

Just to be precise about the timeline, since you got that part wrong:

I registered, made the first deposit and placed two bets, then made a second deposit and placed four more bets. Only after I requested a withdrawal did Spin ask me for KYC, and I provided everything immediately.

After that came the accusation of arbitrage betting. The jurisdiction/residency argument came much later — in fact, today is the first time I’ve heard that my location itself was supposedly a problem, almost four months after I played there.

And yes, as I already said, I missed the catch-all restriction in the ToS. I had checked the restricted-country wording, but neither my country of citizenship nor the country I was playing from was specifically listed.

My point is still the same: Spin accepted both deposits and all six bets without any warning or geoblock. The problems started only when I tried to withdraw my money.

For reference, everything from my side is public:

All 6 bets:
https://i.ibb.co/LBqwwWk/bets.jpg

Both deposits:
https://i.ibb.co/S46VkBHZ/deposits.jpg

The original reason Spin gave for confiscating the funds:
https://i.ibb.co/XxTVySxr/spin-io-scam.jpg

And one more thing: Spin accused me of arbitrage betting. They did not publicly accuse me of “abusing their system.” That is your characterization.

I’ve posted both deposits, all six bets and the full timeline publicly. Nothing from my side is hidden.

People can look at the bets themselves and draw their own conclusions. Saying “you abuse their system” as if that is an established public fact is a different thing.

[Sarah Jordan]

Since the majority of casinos market themselves as no KYC casinos, I think it would be best to be open with users in the terms and conqqqqqqqqditions by stating that KYC may be required for highaqqqq aqq. At least this will stop questions from users.

They are open about it in the terms and conditions. That's the point I am trying to make. The problem is that people don't read the T&Cs. They are long and bore them. They want to register, play, and hopefully win as soon as possible. Gamblers trust the marketing they see. They see no KYC and that's enough for them. If they took their time and actually read the terms, they would see that the casino they are playing at isn't necessarily no KYC at all. But like that meme says: "Ain't nobody got time for that."

Many gamblers skip reading a casino’s TOS before agreeing, often due to excitement to win,  or impatience with lengthy text which is legally supported.This oversight leads to common complaints. But such claims usually stem from a misunderstanding.

Nearly every casino’s ToS contains a clause allowing the operator to amend terms at any time, without prior notice. This means a platform advertised as NoKYC can still legally introduce identity verification requirements later, freeze withdrawals, or adjust bonus conditions. But then most of us finds it difficult to read through it TCs.

[Spin.io]

That’s the distinction though. Spin had my IP from the moment I accessed the site. Whether someone manually reviewed it at that time is a different question.

They didn’t need to monitor players one by one to block restricted locations. Yet there was no geoblock or warning, and they accepted two deposits and my bets.

And as you say yourself, the jurisdiction issue only came up after they flagged my betting activity. That’s exactly my point - it was not a problem until they started looking for a reason not to pay.

As for the “abusive strategy”, so far that remains an accusation without any evidence shown publicly.

I'll appreciate if you stop trying to spin the narrative here.

The order of the situation was: you signed up, agreeing to the ToS of restricted region, quite possibly not knowing it because your intent is to "freeroll" the casino with the abusive betting, then you got caught, then they found out that you're not eligible due to your own country's law. To put it in a perspective:

You agreed to ToS that shifted the knowledge to you.
You still choose to play.
And you abuse their system.
Their alarm got triggered.
They confiscate your account.
They found out you're also from restricted region.
They decide to confiscate without returning principal.

They are not looking for a reason not to pay. The "reason to not pay" come to their own table in form of alarm being triggered by your own detrimental betting behavior. Perhaps if you play it slower... or not so greedy with the betting amount or player amounts or whatever that is that trigger their system... ahh well.

As for showing the abusive strategy publicly, you can rest assured that it is not for you to mind. It will not come out to the public, ever, because --like other casinos-- revealing such information will only ruin their expensive algorithm and teach future abusers how to avoid detection.

Fortunately, you and the casino has agreed to enter a binding mediation with ContestHunters. They've explained, I've seen the evidence of it, all in private, and I draw conclusion based on that and the fact that you're actively breaking country ToS.

End of story, case closed. I believe you've been made abundantly understand what happened. You can insist on this and that, but you're bound by verdict, and this shall be my last comment for you. The next reply I give to this thread or to your SA thread is if other asked around the situation of the verdict.

Thanks for taking your time and solving the case as a mediator, was a very professional experience.

Spin.io and rxdtrip both agreed to enter a binding mediation with ContestHunters, we had Holydarkness look at all the evidence (which I unfortunately cant share here) and he sided with Spin.io.

Spin.io won the case and now the case is closed so time to move on.

[rxdtrip]

The ContestHunters mediation may be closed, but this discussion isn’t.

A CH mediation verdict doesn’t erase the public record or stop players from discussing the casino’s conduct.

I’ve posted both deposits, all 6 bets, the original reason Spin gave for confiscating my funds, and the full timeline publicly. Anyone can look at everything from my side and draw their own conclusions.

The original issue was presented to me as arbitrage betting. The jurisdiction/residency argument only appeared much later - almost four months after I played there.

So yes, ContestHunters (CH) sided with Spin, and the CH mediation is over. But that only means the mediation on CH is finished. It doesn’t close the public discussion or stop me from pursuing the issue of my confiscated $710 deposit elsewhere.

My conclusion from all of this is pretty simple. Spin has plenty of ways to stop players they consider ineligible before taking their money - geoblocking, registration restrictions, warnings, deposit restrictions, etc. That is what I would expect from a reputable casino. Instead, in my case I was able to register, make two deposits and place all 6 bets without any warning or geoblock. The issue only surfaced when I tried to withdraw.

And there is one more thing potential players should be aware of: your country does not even have to be explicitly named in the restricted-country list.

Their ToS contains the broad wording:

“You are a resident in a jurisdiction which allows gambling.”

So you may check the restricted-country wording, see no specific mention of your country, register and deposit normally, and still later find out that Spin considers you ineligible under this broader clause.

That is something I think every player should know before depositing here.

[khaled0111]

It is the choice of gamblers to decide if they are going to read the terms of a casino or they are going to ignore it.

Casinos can not force users to read the ToS and even if they require users to tick the "I’ve read and agreed to the ToS" box, there is no effective way to verify that the user actually read it.
So, yes, users can skip reading the casino’s terms, but that’s obviously not the wisest thing to do. It’s just like in real life, you don’t sign a contract without reading it and knowing what you are agreeing to.

The use of AI can come in when the player doesn't really understand the TOS of the casino very well. At least that can help to break down those rules that need to be observed.

I don’t think using AI for this specific task is a good idea. However, you can use it to clarify parts that you don’t understand.

[GiftedMAN]

A casino requiring KYC is not an issue but the big issue is if the casino is reputable enough with their dealings for you to be able to trust it with your vital credentials; for example, STAKE.COM is a casino that I am free to submit my information to, as they require KYC in their operations with their customers and it's not something they started with but when the information ℹ️ was passed across, I believe thousands of their users had no issues with providing their KYC as the casino has the reputation enough that guarantees users safety with their datas.

Everyone need to be smart when gambling on a casino and it will not be nice to be using different casino and a user information is on several casinos. This can be very risky for anyone that wants to stay out of being hacked in the future because such information can leak to the third world were hackers can use it to start scamming others with real credentials from other people.

You do not know the casino that would be exposing your information to scammers so the number of casinos you have registered and played on doesn't really matter cause only one can expose you and scammers even get access to your information and make use of it to scam you. This is the reason why people are scared of casinos with KYC but seeing how there are lots of complains due to the changes being made by NoKYC casinos you no longer know how you can prevent your information from getting to the hands of scammers. If it's possible casinos should protect the information of their customers cause they trust them before putting it out there in there platform.

[mitchr4]

...
You do not know the casino that would be exposing your information to scammers so the number of casinos you have registered and played on doesn't really matter cause only one can expose you and scammers even get access to your information and make use of it to scam you. This is the reason why people are scared of casinos with KYC but seeing how there are lots of complains due to the changes being made by NoKYC casinos you no longer know how you can prevent your information from getting to the hands of scammers. If it's possible casinos should protect the information of their customers cause they trust them before putting it out there in there platform.

Yeah, the risk isn't really just about KYC or No KYC, it's more about how serious the casino is about protecting the data users trust them with. Whether a casino asks for KYC or not, if the security system is weak, it's still at risk of leaking. That's why it matters for players to also pick a casino with a good reputation on security, not just judging based on the KYC or No KYC label.

[JoyceBTC]

A casino requiring KYC is not an issue but the big issue is if the casino is reputable enough with their dealings for you to be able to trust it with your vital credentials; for example, STAKE.COM is a casino that I am free to submit my information to, as they require KYC in their operations with their customers and it's not something they started with but when the information ℹ️ was passed across, I believe thousands of their users had no issues with providing their KYC as the casino has the reputation enough that guarantees users safety with their datas.

Being a big casino is one thing, and acting big is another thing altogether.

 I don't think that holding customers vital information is all about being big or not, it has more to do with integrity and carefulness, because it's only when a casino has integrity they will do everything in their power to keep users information private, and if they are are careful with users information, their is no way people's details will leak to the public, so your perception that because a casino is big automatically means that they will keep user information safe is wrong in my own opinion.

I will go with the word ‘integrity’ that’s what casino’s needs to have. Without integrity, they can be big and still share their customers private information which is meant to be protected by them. They promised to be confidential and protect their customers data, so it takes a casino that has integrity to keep to their word which represents honesty and not about the size of the casino.

[BlackBoss_]

Yeah, the risk isn't really just about KYC or No KYC, it's more about how serious the casino is about protecting the data users trust them with. Whether a casino asks for KYC or not, if the security system is weak, it's still at risk of leaking. That's why it matters for players to also pick a casino with a good reputation on security, not just judging based on the KYC or No KYC label.

If a company plan their scam before launching a project, a business, and actually do their scam exit, user data including identity documents are not important with that company. These things are even other resources to make money by such scam companies as with them, the most things they concern about is money, nothing more and definitely they don't mind to spend enough resources for protect and secure user identity document database.

With other companies, they are not scam and possibly seriously secure their company databases including user identity documents but it does not guarantee that their database will not be hacked and data will never be leaked.

As users, at the time of KYC, submitting documents for KYC, people accept the fact that these sensitive documents will possibly be leaked in the future. The more platforms they do KYC, the bigger risk for sensitive data leaks.