Full regulation and centralization, or can decentralization survive?

[Antotena]

I’m not suggesting a fight against regulations, that would be impossible. Some people will certainly prefer a safe, regulated environment under government protection. My point is that, thanks to Web3 technology, those who wish to remain anonymous will be able to do so.
There’s an even better solution: Web3 casinos that hold licenses, offering the same level of security as traditional deposit-based casinos. The difference is that with Web3 casinos, you don’t make a deposit, instead, you play directly from your own, anonymous non-custodial wallet on the blockchain. This eliminates the risk of having your withdrawals blocked or being asked to complete a KYC verification, simply because, from a technical standpoint, it’s impossible, unless they were somehow able to manipulate the blockchain itself.

I understand you clearly and I know what you are talking about. Even by looking at login of some casino, there is login by "Metamask", this help people to login and make approval from there wallet and that's all. However, when there is an alternative, know that it comes with limits. There are limits to what you can do without a kyc accounts and full and approved kyced accounts. At most, some casino will not give you more than $5k, where is the freedom in the alternate they gave, it is not fair as it was when there was no kyc then.

I agree that the trend is similar, but the timing of regulation is different. When regulations were first introduced for exchanges, Web3 was known to very few people. Exchanges had no choice but to comply. Today, however, Web3 technology is well-developed, all that’s needed is to talk about it and provide education so that people can begin using it safely. I believe this is a good path forward to ensure that decentralization remains a significant part of the cryptocurrency market and in this case also casinos.

You are right here, the regulations is different and again, the casino company doesn't process money as compare to the casino. However, I think there are many casino that are not compliance and they are operating. If the way SEC is strict is the way casino regulations are, there might be more problems.

In my opinion, it would be better if casino remain Dex than trying to combine two services together. A casino can be non kyc and will be able to pull the numbers.

[xenomorfo]

It will get worse, yes. I think the regulation will continue to advance, but I do not think it will reach the 100% of market. I think it is more likely that there will be coexistence between a highly regulated commercial market on one side and a space for open protocols, for self-custody and decentralized applications on the other, obviously with far fewer options and less appeal.

But you know what I find controversial about the thinking of people who say this?
Accept crypto never necessarily meant decentralization... a casino receives Bitcoin, holds the users balance, controls the games and "decides" when release withdrawals. So, even without KYC it remains a centralized intermediary, and that is why governments saw the "weak point" there to target and impose regulations.

It is the same with exchanges... if we stuck to P2P, we would never have these problems.

So, there is no point in blaming casinos or exchanges if we are the ones who chose centralization and the most vulnerable point to trust with our crypto.

Honestly you know how i feel about regulation, casinos try it at all costs to show that they are serious, but regulation or certification is not enough to guarantee that you will not suffer a scam or a robbery of your money.
This is the thing you need to keep in mind, it is not a guarantee.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

I know what you’re talking about, but I still believe that if we keep talking about and educating people on Web3 technology, decentralization will continue to hold a significant share of the cryptocurrency market and, by extension, the gambling industry as well.

Most crypto gamblers want privacy, and Web3 platforms could offer that. But the biggest problem with decentralized gambling is the government. They will always find reasons to regulate the Web3 industry. These platforms would be forced to acquire licenses, which would have provisions for KYC.

These centralized casinos spend so much on promotion that is why they are popular. Educating people about Web3 gambling would require funds for advertising. And I don't know if any of these decentralized platforms have the financial resources to engage in these massive promotions.

The thing is, decentralized Web3 casinos are already licensed (not sure if all of them but I know at least one), yet you can still play anonymously by connecting solely via a non-custodial wallet. In practice, this allows you to bypass KYC

I’m not suggesting a fight against regulations, that would be impossible. Some people will certainly prefer a safe, regulated environment under government protection. My point is that, thanks to Web3 technology, those who wish to remain anonymous will be able to do so.
There’s an even better solution: Web3 casinos that hold licenses, offering the same level of security as traditional deposit-based casinos. The difference is that with Web3 casinos, you don’t make a deposit, instead, you play directly from your own, anonymous non-custodial wallet on the blockchain. This eliminates the risk of having your withdrawals blocked or being asked to complete a KYC verification, simply because, from a technical standpoint, it’s impossible, unless they were somehow able to manipulate the blockchain itself.

I understand you clearly and I know what you are talking about. Even by looking at login of some casino, there is login by "Metamask", this help people to login and make approval from there wallet and that's all. However, when there is an alternative, know that it comes with limits. There are limits to what you can do without a kyc accounts and full and approved kyced accounts. At most, some casino will not give you more than $5k, where is the freedom in the alternate they gave, it is not fair as it was when there was no kyc then.

And the great thing is that in a licensed casino, you can play anonymously, directly from, for example, MetaMask.
As for the limits set by casinos, that is entirely their own private business, how they manage them is up to them. Taking away someone’s freedom to manage their own business is not decentralization.

I agree that the trend is similar, but the timing of regulation is different. When regulations were first introduced for exchanges, Web3 was known to very few people. Exchanges had no choice but to comply. Today, however, Web3 technology is well-developed, all that’s needed is to talk about it and provide education so that people can begin using it safely. I believe this is a good path forward to ensure that decentralization remains a significant part of the cryptocurrency market and in this case also casinos.

You are right here, the regulations is different and again, the casino company doesn't process money as compare to the casino. However, I think there are many casino that are not compliance and they are operating. If the way SEC is strict is the way casino regulations are, there might be more problems.

In my opinion, it would be better if casino remain Dex than trying to combine two services together. A casino can be non kyc and will be able to pull the numbers.

Sure, a casino can be "no KYC" and unlicensed. But in this case, you get the perfect combination: a decentralized Web3 casino that is licensed, yet allows you to remain anonymous and bypass KYC by playing directly via MetaMask. In my opinion, it’s a great solution.

It will get worse, yes. I think the regulation will continue to advance, but I do not think it will reach the 100% of market. I think it is more likely that there will be coexistence between a highly regulated commercial market on one side and a space for open protocols, for self-custody and decentralized applications on the other, obviously with far fewer options and less appeal.

But you know what I find controversial about the thinking of people who say this?
Accept crypto never necessarily meant decentralization... a casino receives Bitcoin, holds the users balance, controls the games and "decides" when release withdrawals. So, even without KYC it remains a centralized intermediary, and that is why governments saw the "weak point" there to target and impose regulations.

It is the same with exchanges... if we stuck to P2P, we would never have these problems.

So, there is no point in blaming casinos or exchanges if we are the ones who chose centralization and the most vulnerable point to trust with our crypto.

Honestly you know how i feel about regulation, casinos try it at all costs to show that they are serious, but regulation or certification is not enough to guarantee that you will not suffer a scam or a robbery of your money.
This is the thing you need to keep in mind, it is not a guarantee.

There is always some level of risk, especially when the human factor is involved. In my view, decentralized casinos minimize this risk as much as possible. With Web3 technology, you don’t have to rely on trust - wondering whether a casino will pay out your funds or not, because you play directly from your own anonymous, non-custodial wallet (such as MetaMask), with everything governed by the blockchain and the smart contracts implemented on it.

[Julien_Olynpic]

For casinos to be completely decentralized and unregulated, they would have to be reinvented on an independent platform, something akin to Bitcoin. They would have their own distributed network, their own servers, and so on. While casinos are understandable, decentralized sports betting is completely beyond my understanding. This requires oracles, i.e., providers of reliable information from the off-chain world to the blockchain. There's a risk of fraud, which means the shadow of the regulator will always loom large over bookmakers.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

For casinos to be completely decentralized and unregulated, they would have to be reinvented on an independent platform, something akin to Bitcoin. They would have their own distributed network, their own servers, and so on. While casinos are understandable, decentralized sports betting is completely beyond my understanding. This requires oracles, i.e., providers of reliable information from the off-chain world to the blockchain. There's a risk of fraud, which means the shadow of the regulator will always loom large over bookmakers.

It’s great that you brought this up, because it’s already been done - it’s called Web3 technology. In the context of casinos, this means complete decentralization, with gameplay based entirely on the blockchain. You simply connect your anonymous, non-custodial wallet (such as MetaMask) directly to the casino, and that’s it - just play. Furthermore, a Web3 casino hold a license, the technology itself makes it impossible for the operator to block your transactions - meaning they cannot interfere with your ability to play directly from your wallet, as they have no power to manipulate the blockchain and they can not force you to KYC verification. I believe this is an excellent solution: the blockchain provides technical security, while the casino’s license offers protection from a regulatory standpoint.

[Royal Cap]

To be honest, most people don't like KYC casinos. But they are forced to do KYC verification. Even I also don't like KYC verification myself. I looked for a few decentralized non KYC casinos but didn't find one that suited my fancy. Because I couldn't find all the benefits that are provided in centralized casinos in decentralized casinos. or because my search was a little wrong. But it seems to me that the current government wants to regulate cryptocurrency, which is why casino companies are now forced to implement KYC verification. But we have to admit that KYC only enhances the security of our account. Because without KYC, our account would have been blocked without any reason. Now because of KYC but we can at least prove our account is mine.

[Easy.Playw3.com]

To be honest, most people don't like KYC casinos. But they are forced to do KYC verification. Even I also don't like KYC verification myself. I looked for a few decentralized non KYC casinos but didn't find one that suited my fancy. Because I couldn't find all the benefits that are provided in centralized casinos in decentralized casinos. or because my search was a little wrong. But it seems to me that the current government wants to regulate cryptocurrency, which is why casino companies are now forced to implement KYC verification. But we have to admit that KYC only enhances the security of our account. Because without KYC, our account would have been blocked without any reason. Now because of KYC but we can at least prove our account is mine.

I agree that in Web2 casinos - that is, all the traditional ones where you have to make a deposit, KYC might be required due to licensing. However, in Web3 casinos, even those that are licensed, requiring KYC verification is technically impossible, because you connect to them directly from an anonymous, non-custodial wallet (for example Trust Wallet). In this setup, transactions are blockchain-based, and the casino simply cannot manipulate them. So, this is how you bypass the KYC verification requirement.

[WhoYouCantKill]

I know what you’re talking about, but I still believe that if we keep talking about and educating people on Web3 technology, decentralization will continue to hold a significant share of the cryptocurrency market and, by extension, the gambling industry as well.

Education can be helpful indeed, but I believe there are equally other factors that may decide if this is gonna work or not. You know a lot of gamblers pick which casino they use based on how smooth it is, how fast their money arrives when they place a withdrawal, whether there are available people on standby 24/7 to take their complaints should there arise an issue and also whether they can actually trust them with their money, there could be more reasons too. But if a decentralized casino is able to match a regular or centralized casino on these things, then they’ll definitely thrive, but if they can’t meet their expectations, people would rather settle for the one they trust, regardless of the other benefits you try to educate them about.

[Lukakur]

If you ask me, I'll say the pure decentralization crowd already lost the cultural war years ago. The moment that the big shots embraced licensing and others saw how the money followed, the whole "we don't need no regulation" mindset just evaporated for several other people.

Ordinarily, I'd prefer the no KYC side on principle, but you see, I'm not really that optimistic it stays the default.

in my opinion no, this is a moment in which now more than ever it is necessary to get to that point, the decentralization of everything, and it is essential to have it now, when the world is in crisis now more than ever, it is in a moment in which there is nothing to do other than to hide one's possessions, the KYC is the least correct choice in the world in my opinion.

[Ayers]

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?

For long time most online casino have essentially been custodial and centralized. They only accept BTC and USDT deposit, but everything else runs on their own server.

So, you cannot call introduction of KYC on such platform a defeat for decentralization. Because they were not decentralized from the very beginning.

okay, a truly decentralized casino mean one that is non custodial and on chain. So, are you going to play with these?
Never, at least i am not.

I don’t have any patience to play on that slow interfaces of dApps.
And where should those who enjoy playing live dealer table games go? Are they supposed to hop from one casino to another just to play different game?

[danadc]

It's hard to see a web3 casino that will match your description. We have seen web3 casinos come out from time to time and most of them just discontinued their service due to how people lack trust in them and low revenue which can't sustain them. When the majority of the people already lack confidence in them how can they grow to the level which you are going to trust them, the only place I usually have issue with them is on wallet connect, but we can always create new wallet specifically for gambling and it will have limited funds.

That's very true. I don't trust those Web3 casinos; they've never inspired confidence in me, and at this point, it's very difficult to change some players' mentalities because we like things easy and safe. I don't agree with KYC, but it's mandatory, and that's what has to be done.

But the issue of regulations is now for the benefit of the government and not for what's truly important, which is customer protection. Customer protection is just an excuse for the regulations.

[Chibit01]

Honestly you know how i feel about regulation, casinos try it at all costs to show that they are serious, but regulation or certification is not enough to guarantee that you will not suffer a scam or a robbery of your money.
This is the thing you need to keep in mind, it is not a guarantee.

If proper regulation was actually to serve its purpose and regulators were to do what they are supposed to, a regulated service is not supposed to scam anyone. Even if they try to pull a scam the law should be able to protect players and catch those involved in the scam, since they have the details of those who run the casino and can always go and apprehend them in case of mischief, but it's quite the opposite it appears that in some cases some local casinos are even being protected them the sole called body that should protect the people.

[skarais]

The government has the power and authority to regulate anything, including the gambling industry. Some of the familiar reasons why this regulation is expected is to protect customers to the point of preventing illegal actions. I understand what the government expects, but on the other hand some customers wish there was a place that could keep their privacy. The gambling industry is one of those places where money flows so heavily from various sources, so I also understand why the government is so eager to regulate it and actually regulate it. In the end, decentralization is expected, but governments will always look for ways that anything involving money can be regulated to be centralized.

[lombok]

Honestly you know how i feel about regulation, casinos try it at all costs to show that they are serious, but regulation or certification is not enough to guarantee that you will not suffer a scam or a robbery of your money.
This is the thing you need to keep in mind, it is not a guarantee.

If proper regulation was actually to serve its purpose and regulators were to do what they are supposed to, a regulated service is not supposed to scam anyone. Even if they try to pull a scam the law should be able to protect players and catch those involved in the scam, since they have the details of those who run the casino and can always go and apprehend them in case of mischief, but it's quite the opposite it appears that in some cases some local casinos are even being protected them the sole called body that should protect the people.

The paper regulations are usually nothing but a formal procedure for getting licenses that does not include any actual supervision at all. With the powerful combination of capital and influence, laws become weak, and allow service providers to keep on abusing public money by manipulating the system in an intentional way. The feeling of safety given by certification papers increases the chance of losing one’s money because supervisors seem to be ignoring the fraud. With law enforcement officials on the side of capital holders, there is no way of getting justice for the victim.

[uneng]

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.

Everything which reach the masses end turning into centralization. Back then, crypto industry had less adopters and more independant participants who were looking for decentralization and privacy. They were fine with the pros and cons involved on that concept of market.

However, as more people arrived, they brought with them the same mindset shared inside the societies, where there must be a high authority controlling everything and everyone under the excuse of protection and security. Most people buy that idea and wish to enforce that to everyone else.

In the end, the few adopters who started this industry have to pay the price for crypto and virtual gambling going mainstream.