Full regulation and centralization, or can decentralization survive?

[ralle14]

I also don't mind decentralization, but most casinos will have to pick and choose what's best for them, and we already know the answer just by looking at the state of the current casinos we have now.

Some casinos are slowly heading down that path as they keep on updating their policies, and I doubt fighting back will change anything when casinos are just simply doing what they're told to keep things running.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

-snip-
Now, KYC/AML and licenses are the norm, and the community even expects them.

This does not imply an expectation; rather, in certain situations, users require legal certainty when casinos implement AML (Anti-Money Laundering) procedures.
After all, unfair practices by licensed casinos are still frequently encountered.

And here, the example I provided above is relevant once again. Web3 casinos are regulated and licensed, but they are unable to enforce KYC procedures when a user logs in via a non-custodial wallet.

-snip-
However, these are practically impossible to enforce when you log in using a non-custodial wallet.
Or have I perhaps overlooked something?

Web3 is not always absolutely non-custodial; That is just a casino label, meaning you can log in by authorizing a non-custodial wallet. Moreover, this does not necessarily mean that the casino has obtained all the required wallet authorizations, including whether their architecture will also request authorization to place bets, or if you are instead required to deposit your funds into their "hot wallet" first.

If a casino requires a deposit, it’s not Web3 - it’s classic Web2.

Another point to consider is that a smart contract can even be programmed with the capability to freeze funds.

And this, it seems to me, is the most sensitive issue. Technically, a user logs into the casino using a non-custodial wallet, but this process takes place via a smart contract. It occurs to me that if the smart contract were designed in such a way that it could block access at some stage, the casino could effectively enforce KYC requirements. This is precisely what concerns me the most. It seems that only an external audit of the smart contracts could dispel such doubts - or, alternatively, the first situation in which a user’s funds actually get blocked.

[sompitonov]

Since casinos want to continue their business and stay align with government regulations, they have no option than to ask for KYC because the government is a centralised body and loves to control everything they put their hands on.

In the early days, government didn't have interest on bitcion because they thought it's just a hype but as time passes on, bitcoin started paving wave and becoming stronger, they had on option than to accept it in order to regulate any services using crypto. For now, we cannot have a decentralised casino because even the ones that proclaim to be no KYC does the opposite.

In practice, I also see many casinos failing to live up to the promises they made to attract more players often by claiming they don’t require KYC procedures. While I understand that any tactic might be considered fair game in marketing, it’s in our best interest as players to keep a close eye on such platforms, remove them from our lists of viable gaming sites, and stick exclusively to those that have stood the test of time. Perhaps decentralized casinos will emerge in the future, but for now, I don’t see any signs of them taking shape.

[danherbias07]

Well, the problem is that many decentralized gambling sites have not proven to be good. Now, when it comes to the regulated ones with KYC, they can definitely pay out even if big wins happen. I think that's where most gamblers are siding. The assurance of being paid in exchange for KYC. The security and the knowledge that they won't be scammed, even if they leave their money in their wallet.

Can it be reversed? I don't think so. Many gamblers have already accepted what is happening today, and I believe they are doing it so that no problems will happen in case they win. A smooth transaction can definitely change the mind of a gambler, especially if they are trying to withdraw loads of money.

[o48o]

Long story short: I remember when regulations first started and casinos began introducing KYC/AML verification. Back then, the community was pretty mad that anyone would even try to regulate decentralized crypto casinos.

I feel like after a few years, things have completely flipped. Now, KYC/AML and licenses are the norm, and the community even expects them.

I wonder if this is an irreversible trend that will lead to total regulation of crypto and casinos, or if fans of decentralization will still fight back against it.

I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

Decisions for KYC you need to do now have been done while you were still enjoying decentralized and semi anonymous gambling. Just like decisions and restrictions for services you still are still able to use have been made already. You just don't see the results of them yet because implementing them comes in phases, just like it is with current regulations that you need to follow.

Personally i don't see how "no-kyc" services could win this battle.

There will be some underground resistance to centralization which wont die, but i have hard time to believe it would happen with significant cashflows, because institutional investors can't be part of it.

[Elainebue]

i think regulation is here to stay tbh, but full centralization would defeat a big part of what made crypto interesting in the first place

[asriloni]

The fact the become a web3 based is not making your platform free from being regulated. The decentralization can't fight the regulation and government due to the how powerful they are.

You don't like it, but it's the truth.

It seems to me that, in this thread, we should also discuss how KYC can be applied in Web3 casinos.
As far as I’m aware, Web3 casinos do indeed include KYC/AML policies in their terms and conditions (Because those are the license requirements). However, these are practically impossible to enforce when you log in using a non-custodial wallet.
Or have I perhaps overlooked something?

The platform just only need to disable all of service to you unless you have verified yourself. They can also use sumsub for this. I've been facing this thing so many times in various web3 dapps. that's why i said that's possible.

[Hatchy]

I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

I don't know much about Web3 or whether it will help improve decentralisation, but one thing I'm sure of is that we will always prefer decentralised casinos. However, with the number of scammers and fraudulent casinos in the space, staying safe has become a major concern. This is where regulations come in, as they are meant to protect both players and casinos from scams. Back when we had more decentralised casinos, gambling and making withdrawals seemed much easier, with fewer delays and complaints. many casinos got away with scamming players because they had no licences and there was no easy way to track them down or hold them accountable. I'm not saying centralisation is the way forward, but given the situation we are in right now, it seems like something we have to work with for the time being.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

The fact the become a web3 based is not making your platform free from being regulated. The decentralization can't fight the regulation and government due to the how powerful they are.

You don't like it, but it's the truth.

It seems to me that, in this thread, we should also discuss how KYC can be applied in Web3 casinos.
As far as I’m aware, Web3 casinos do indeed include KYC/AML policies in their terms and conditions (Because those are the license requirements). However, these are practically impossible to enforce when you log in using a non-custodial wallet.
Or have I perhaps overlooked something?

The platform just only need to disable all of service to you unless you have verified yourself. They can also use sumsub for this. I've been facing this thing so many times in various web3 dapps. that's why i said that's possible.

Yes, that’s possible, but they cannot block your bets when you’re playing directly from your wallet. (Unless, some Web3 casino has a smart contract designed that way - though I haven’t seen anything like that yet.)
That is how it’s explained: They have KYC/AML policies in place for scenarios - for example, if someone were to use a bot to generate thousands of wallets and launch an attack on their casino - so they can block it and ask for KYC. In other words, in Web3 casinos, KYC functions the opposite way it does in traditional Web2 casinos: it’s used to restrict entry into the casino, rather than to block withdrawals.

[gracreavix]

Have you really observed the community or you just looked at the surface level and thing decentralisation is going out. No. It may seem that everyone is doing KYC and just accepting it. But there is a wider community that still stand on their ground and some services are providing that. What you fail to understand is that the world can't be one sided. It might seem that way because a group of people want you to see it that way. It's like the dark web exist and only few people in the world knows about it. All plans to make only few know.

It's just same with decentralised platforms. Even if everyone decides the shift to centralised, there will always be a group of people standing their ground.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

Have you really observed the community or you just looked at the surface level and thing decentralisation is going out. No. It may seem that everyone is doing KYC and just accepting it. But there is a wider community that still stand on their ground and some services are providing that. What you fail to understand is that the world can't be one sided. It might seem that way because a group of people want you to see it that way. It's like the dark web exist and only few people in the world knows about it. All plans to make only few know.

It's just same with decentralised platforms. Even if everyone decides the shift to centralised, there will always be a group of people standing their ground.

I feel the same way. I’m just checking whether the community is forgetting the fundamental reasons why Bitcoin was created and drifting unthinkingly toward complete centralization, or if there are still users who care about using cryptocurrencies anonymously, for instance in casinos. I mean, I’m just sounding out opinions and sentiments.


Judging by what I’m reading in this thread, it seems everyone wants casinos to be regulated, so they can turn to the authorities if problems arise, but simultaneously remaining anonymous.
In my view, Web3 offers exactly these possibilities, and I’m surprised the community isn’t talking about it.  

[coin-investor]

Long story short: I
I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

The casino industry has evolved, and the gambling community has accepted it, because the casinos want to keep their existence protected. If they do not implement KYC/AML, the government could take down their platforms for non-compliance.

It's for the welfare of both the casinos and the betting public that casinos comply with full regulation. I don't think it will change, as the top casinos are on this.

[Itz-prisigold]

Well, the problem is that many decentralized gambling sites have not proven to be good. Now, when it comes to the regulated ones with KYC, they can definitely pay out even if big wins happen. I think that's where most gamblers are siding. The assurance of being paid in exchange for KYC. The security and the knowledge that they won't be scammed, even if they leave their money in their wallet. 

You are very right that many gamblers do favor regulated casinos, mostly because they are certain that they'll be able to get their cash without issues.  But I believe that just offering KYC isn't sufficient to ensure that a casino is a trustworthy one because even license casinos can experience withdrawal problems.

When it comes to me it's about how fair a platform is towards their users and whether they're paying what their customers are winning.  So that level of trust also needs to be established in decentralized casinos if they want to gain more users attention.

[xenomorfo]

KYC casino didn't become a norm because everyone wants it, the casinos wants to be in complaint with government regulations so that they can operate freely in the jurisdiction of their choice and not be declared as illegal casino by the government of that state. Not minding the high number of regulated crypto casino, there are still individuals that hates KYC so much and have never submitted their personal information before to pass KYC requirement on any casino, they definitely will not use a casino that seeks for KYC. The government wants regulations and you can not fight it, so the trend is already irreversible but any web3 casino that truly maintain decentralization will remain the best choice for those players that hates KYC as long as the casino is reputable.

they want to be in compliance, but whose rules? it seems truly absurd to me that we have to submit to the rules imposed by a non-existent state when we need them and they are never there
the only thing they know how to do is put taxes and remove services... prove the opposite to me.

[Odusko]

KYC casino didn't become a norm because everyone wants it, the casinos wants to be in complaint with government regulations so that they can operate freely in the jurisdiction of their choice and not be declared as illegal casino by the government of that state. Not minding the high number of regulated crypto casino, there are still individuals that hates KYC so much and have never submitted their personal information before to pass KYC requirement on any casino, they definitely will not use a casino that seeks for KYC. The government wants regulations and you can not fight it, so the trend is already irreversible but any web3 casino that truly maintain decentralization will remain the best choice for those players that hates KYC as long as the casino is reputable.

they want to be in compliance, but whose rules? it seems truly absurd to me that we have to submit to the rules imposed by a non-existent state when we need them and they are never there
the only thing they know how to do is put taxes and remove services... prove the opposite to me.

I understand the concern that government like of connections with the people have made some of their rules to be seen as punishment that citizens will just have to leave with regardless of their own failure to even implement those rules to the fullest when need be. Centralised casinos will definitely have to play along with government cards to keep operating and licensing can give a casino a sense of reputation that builds up liquidity for winnings and payouts; these are the main reasons why Centralised casinos are still thriving to date.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

Long story short: I
I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

The casino industry has evolved, and the gambling community has accepted it, because the casinos want to keep their existence protected. If they do not implement KYC/AML, the government could take down their platforms for non-compliance.

It's for the welfare of both the casinos and the betting public that casinos comply with full regulation. I don't think it will change, as the top casinos are on this.

You are very right that many gamblers do favor regulated casinos, mostly because they are certain that they'll be able to get their cash without issues.  But I believe that just offering KYC isn't sufficient to ensure that a casino is a trustworthy one because even license casinos can experience withdrawal problems.

When it comes to me it's about how fair a platform is towards their users and whether they're paying what their customers are winning.  So that level of trust also needs to be established in decentralized casinos if they want to gain more users attention.

I think I can give both of you the same answer - which is, in fact, quite similar to what I’ve already told several people above. I just hope I won’t be accused of spamming I’m simply trying to respond to everyone who posts in this thread and stays on topic.

It’s true that regulations provide security - that’s a good thing, and it’s natural that most people would choose security.
However, a point that’s being overlooked in this thread (which really surprises me) is that Web3 casinos can be regulated - meaning they can hold a license, while still allowing users to remain anonymous by connecting via a non-custodial wallet. In my view, this is precisely the solution that could steer things back toward decentralization. It’s strange to me that so many users here seems to don't know how Web3 actually works. Not everyone, of course - but based on what I’m reading, very few people here actually understand how Web3 functions.
And yet, on a Bitcointalk forum, founded with the core principle of decentralization in mind, it is Web3 that should be promoted - not a push toward centralization. At least that’s what I think.

[PauloKoner]

Long story short: I remember when regulations first started and casinos began introducing KYC/AML verification. Back then, the community was pretty mad that anyone would even try to regulate decentralized crypto casinos.

I feel like after a few years, things have completely flipped. Now, KYC/AML and licenses are the norm, and the community even expects them.

I wonder if this is an irreversible trend that will lead to total regulation of crypto and casinos, or if fans of decentralization will still fight back against it.

I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

Of course I'd like decentralization to win and for us to keep our right to privacy. But what can we really do about it?... all that's left is to hope for fully no KYC casinos and there are fewer and fewer of them.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, casinos without KYC are still possible, but such casinos must completely abandon the idea of ​​accepting fiat deposits. Fiat payments are impossible without the involvement of banks, and banks require KYC and AML procedures.🙋

Also, such online casinos will not be able to obtain official licenses. Regulatory authorities in all countries are under pressure from the FATF and will not issue licenses to casinos that demonstratively refuse KYC procedures.

Such casinos may also run into problems with major game providers. Major game providers obtain their own licenses and will likely not cooperate with casinos without KYC.

Therefore, if an online casino wants to operate without KYC, it will have to make significant sacrifices. Deposits will have to be accepted exclusively in cryptocurrency. Over time, in the future, we may even reach a point where such casinos will only accept Monero.💁

[leea-1334]

I feel like after a few years, things have completely flipped. Now, KYC/AML and licenses are the norm, and the community even expects them.

Not the community I am in on this forum,,, talking about the paid pools and BSFL even. I know almost all my crowd are very anti KYC so much so we only play at casinos that do not ask for it. Personally, I may test a new casino with deposit but as soon as they will ask me for it, goodbye. Before Sportsbet, and now Jackpotter, Rainbet, these are where I play as they honor withdrawals the way they accept deposits,,, without asking for KYC.

Which community are you talking about?

[m0nica.just]

Long story short: I remember when regulations first started and casinos began introducing KYC/AML verification. Back then, the community was pretty mad that anyone would even try to regulate decentralized crypto casinos.

I feel like after a few years, things have completely flipped. Now, KYC/AML and licenses are the norm, and the community even expects them.

I wonder if this is an irreversible trend that will lead to total regulation of crypto and casinos, or if fans of decentralization will still fight back against it.

I’d prefer to stay on the decentralized side, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think Web3 will help the decentralized space survive, or will everything just move toward full regulation and centralization?

I'd say crypto casinos should fight to keep decentralization because that's the whole reason people came to them in the first place. Privacy and control over your own funds are what set them apart from regular casinos and without that they're just another regulated site that happens to take bitcoin...

If the community gives that up without a fight there won't be much left to choose from.