Are regulators tightening crypto KYC? We, players, will feel it too

[Somegory]

I am not worried about KYC verification, I've never been until now, I have problem with trusting banks but today it's about giving up my KYC information to a centralised platfroms.

Funny part is many of them want money but they don't want to spend money on better security for their platfrom, so if I give up my information to such platforms and they get careless, all my information will land in hackers homes.

The problem is data leaks, this scared me so much that passing any KYC verification again will be very hard, I don't even want to do KYC anymore because they are not safe.

[Kelvinid]

The more they keep tightening the rules, the harder it becomes for gamblers to enjoy using casinos to gamble because some ToS differ from the suitability of the gamblers.

This is why I mostly advise for going with no-KYC gambling casino, this saves us from any unnecessary complicated issues that has to do with compliance to their regulations, I don't know how some Gambler still feel more comfortable with using casinos that do apply Street kyc adherence.

For regulators, tightening the rules means safety and protection for its gamblers from fraud and money laundering, but I don't see it that way. In fact, it even scare us because aside that we will lost our sense of privacy, we will also be more exposed from experiencing freezing or confiscating our funds especially if a certain platform is forced to stop its operation due to breaking rules or laws.

This is also the reason why I still prefer non-KYC gambling casinos, though some are faking it and still end up with KYC verification once you win a big amount.

[avp2306]

I am not worried about KYC verification, I've never been until now, I have problem with trusting banks but today it's about giving up my KYC information to a centralised platfroms.

Funny part is many of them want money but they don't want to spend money on better security for their platfrom, so if I give up my information to such platforms and they get careless, all my information will land in hackers homes.

The problem is data leaks, this scared me so much that passing any KYC verification again will be very hard, I don't even want to do KYC anymore because they are not safe.

The only situation we should start to worry about KYC verification. If the casino we are using still don't have a solid reputation.

But if the casino is proven good for many years. I think we don't have anything to worry about with those changes or updates they made.

Also that data breach you have mentioned, usually happen on small platforms. There are times it happen on well known ones, but what's good about them is, they make sure to notify their site users to avoid experiencing any issues.

[Yamifoud]

Then think if you gamble in casinos that require KYC or choose those that do not. Many are still KYC-free, but don't get easily fooled by them because some of them are scammers.

As always, it is our discretion to gamble and the kind of casino we choose. Thinking KYC is a problem only adds stress and can lead to wrong decisions. This is not a challenge but rather an adaptation. Casinos are running a business, and they have rules to follow, especially when the government requires them to do so. So, it's either we accept and follow the requirements or simply walk away from gambling.

[Queen uloma]

As if they have not done enough, the problem is definitely about my identity, will my data be saved in the hands of these casinos? Can they also show me how much secured their platforms have become?

I won't be the only one doing the KYC, they should start showing their full license too, KYC verification is already enough the way it is, going deep like they plan now will result in loss of customers.

No wonder people keep looking for no KYC casinos, can we even blame them? What security features casinos have compared to crypto exchanges? They are not even on same league, yet crypto exchanges got hacked, how is our data going to be in safe hands.

totally understand their need to adhere to regulations, but customers deserve to know how to safe  their personal information. If casino wants people to submit private information, they need to be honest about their license, protective measures and data security policies. KYC is not suppose to become an excuse to collect more information without assuring that they can protect it.

To be honest We can’t blame people for preferring no KYC casinos when trust and data security remains the major concern. 

[9ja Amaka]

I see no reason why this much changes. Are they trying to chase people from gambling? The new changes, if implemented, are not going to favor the regulators. After much consideration, the news will be a thing of the past because it doesn't make sense.

Casino companies can cope with strict licensing procedures, but if there are going to be strict KYC requirements for their customer that will affect their gambling business, the casino may decide not to apply for a license. From next year, if this change takes place, we will have more unlicensed illegal casinos operating.

[Sim_card]

Making it more stricter will make gamblers move from Curacao licensed casino to Anjouan licensed casinos because I don't think that it makes any sense for a casino to track my wallet. What are they looking for. All the hacks around why didn't these casinos detect it and prevent it from happening. This is just another means to give casinos upper hand to deprive customers from withdrawing their wins.

[Accardo]

On the level of restricting deposits from tainted coins, Monero will get a wider adoption from gamblers, because Caracao can't track the past activities of Monero transactions. There is less to worry about, Crypto gamblers will definitely find a way to bypass most restrictions linked to coin source without making their way to a different operator.

[DanWalker]

Curaçao wants crypto casinos to screen your wallet and trace your funds, right after its own portal was open to a fake identity for nine months. Players are being asked to hand over more data to a system that just proved it can’t guard it.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this double standard from Curacao! When Curacao Gaming Authority itself cannot keep its own portal secure, Using fake identity, Lilith Wittmann spent about nine month snooping around inside their server. Passports and tax file of 800+ casino owner have been leaked. Do they want to monitor players transaction and wallet there? The hypocrisy is at its peak!

I believe wallet tracking is even more dangerou than submitting ID card. If any mixer or any third party fund has, inadvertently come into contact with flagged wallet 3-4 step back in chain, then even innocent player’s deposit will be blocked. It is absolutely ridiculous to go looking for origin of player funds when you cannot even keep your own data secure.

[Leon Zimmer]

I believe wallet tracking is even more dangerou than submitting ID card. If any mixer or any third party fund has, inadvertently come into contact with flagged wallet 3-4 step back in chain, then even innocent player's deposit will be blocked.

While there was no players KYC data leaked in these files (it was owner passports and tax info) this issue definitely does raise some issues around trust. Youve got a regulator who has failed to protect their own portal, yet are requiring operators to collect even more data. It’s also worth noting that casinos and analytics vendors are far more commonly breached.

For 3-4 hops we had typically see analytics tools flagging based on how direct the exposure is and how much of the funds can be traced back to a flagged source. Mixers a few hops back will typically score very low. This is why deposits directly from a mixer or sanctioned address will trigger a block. Real issue here is if there is false positive and no way to appeal. Casino can ask to block withdrawal due to “source of funds” without any time frame. Same wallet withdrawal rule also impacts anyone who deposits from an exchange as these addresses often are not reliable for returning funds. It’s always worth checking a casino terms to see if they have these rules in place.

[perfect999]

On the level of restricting deposits from tainted coins, Monero will get a wider adoption from gamblers, because Caracao can't track the past activities of Monero transactions. There is less to worry about, Crypto gamblers will definitely find a way to bypass most restrictions linked to coin source without making their way to a different operator.

Are you sure that many casinos are accepting Monero? I am sorry I could not recall that Stake is supporting Monero or not. These days, we do not have many options for privacy oriented coins as regulators already led them to be obsolete by heavy regulations and seizing. Still, when we have exchanges which are not bothering about source of our coins, I guess we can simply bypass these restrictions but not sure all crypto gamblers are aware of these because when I checking with my colleague, he is in plan to switch over to a no-KYC casino.

In some sense, he must be right. Yes, instead of looking for all possible means to bypass casinos' new regulations, I agree that switching over to a no-KYC-requirement casino must be a long term solution because we cannot be sure that we can have a bypassing solution for all future regulations as well.

[JoyceBTC]

No wonder people keep looking for no KYC casinos, can we even blame them? What security features casinos have compared to crypto exchanges? They are not even on same league, yet crypto exchanges got hacked, how is our data going to be in safe hands.

We cannot blame them at all because the whole process of KYC is becoming so stressful and even when players keep running to no KYC casinos, they still end up asking for KYC verification later on, now making it totally hard to even see a casino that won’t request for KYC.
And for the casinos that use KYC that most of us even trust enough to provide our personal information are not still saved because anything can happen but nevertheless, it is still better to stick to the ones we’ve trusted to some certain extent to secure our data than moving around different casino sites and our personal information appearing in different databases.

[free-bit.co.in]

Would you accept wallet screening for a licence that actually means something

Personally, I would not accept having my wallet screened or traced at any licensed casino.

If Curacao starts making too much noise, gambler might gradually shift toward Anjouan, Costa Rica or truly on chain, fully offshore, no KYC casonos.

You know, it will backfire on operators as well. Large, multi billion dollar casinos might survive by implementing any robust compliance stack. But others will shift to Anjouan or other dark regime. There will be only one result the market will split into two.

[BigTarget]

Would you accept wallet screening for a licence that actually means something

Personally, I would not accept having my wallet screened or traced at any licensed casino.

If Curacao starts making too much noise, gambler might gradually shift toward Anjouan, Costa Rica or truly on chain, fully offshore, no KYC casonos.

You know, it will backfire on operators as well. Large, multi billion dollar casinos might survive by implementing any robust compliance stack. But others will shift to Anjouan or other dark regime. There will be only one result the market will split into two.

I am afraid about other operators as well to follow Curacao due to heavy regulations from their respective governments while providing games to casinos. Moreover I guess, Curacao is the first operator to unveil this type of policy on our wallets whereas other operators are just delaying their policy update in the fear of losing their customer base. So in the end, getting into no KYC casinos would be the permanent solution for this gambling community.

I believe, gamblers will find all the required solutions to comply these new regulations hence I am expecting even small level casinos will not feel immediate impact on engaging Curacao as a provider but if government look for more stricter rules in future to cover all those possible bypassing solutions, then like you said that only large casinos will survive. Personally  I expect more sticker KYC policies from government in upcoming years because this is how government works in most countries.

[Smartprofit]

I do not see anything wrong with their rules except the fact that they will access gamblers wallet to monitor gamblers transactions, that is like invading someone's privacy, and any casino who is under this jurisdiction should please state it clearly in the terms and policies so gamblers will be aware, if they actually want to provide this tight security it's best to work with the KYC verification rather than this new method, most gamblers normally avoid casinos that request for KYC talk more of  giving a casino permission to access your wallet activities, security is significant but to this extent it is not funny.

In my opinion, these innovations contradict the very idea of ​​cryptocurrency. One might immediately ask, "Would Satoshi Nakamoto approve of these innovations, or would he dislike them?" In my opinion, the answer is obvious! 🙋

Completing the KYC procedure puts a player's privacy at risk. Their personal data can be stolen by hackers and posted on the darknet. I think everyone already understands that there is no such thing as online security. Hackers can break into a system of any complexity and steal any data. We have seen this repeatedly over the past month.

The loss of personal data poses serious problems for a player. They may face serious claims from tax authorities in their country of residence, blackmail, or even the possibility of their data being used to commit a crime.

The innovation also requires casinos to implement KYT procedures. Essentially, this involves an audit of the financial history of a player's cryptocurrency wallet.  Few people want to face the prospect of having their funds frozen because a portion of them was deemed insufficiently "clean."

In my opinion, this will lead to players leaving online casinos licensed in Curacao, and online casinos themselves will seek other ways to conduct their business. 💁

[terrific]

They have no option but to follow what's being applied to them by these regulators.
If they're good enough and this is the process that they have to go, I might think of it before continuing.
Because until now, there are still casinos that requires no kyc. For example in bitz, it allows me to withdraw without question.
So before it was exchanges being too strict with the deposits, now it's going to be casinos? didn't foresee this.

[Odogwu-Blockchain]

The part that worries me isn't simply more KYC, it's the combination of identity data and wallet intelligence. A passport tells the operator who you are; blockchain analytics can expose years of financial relationships. What limits exist on how long that risk data is retained or reused?

It's kept to sell to those who needs them for their own benefits, you simply cannot do or know when these identity are sold out. They needs more than your identity, sometimes, it could be the mail, that they can send bulk messages promoting their company.

Privacy in secret is the key to successful message that lasts longer and brings safety feelings.

[Antotena]

I am not worried about KYC verification, I've never been until now, I have problem with trusting banks but today it's about giving up my KYC information to a centralised platfroms.

Funny part is many of them want money but they don't want to spend money on better security for their platfrom, so if I give up my information to such platforms and they get careless, all my information will land in hackers homes.

The problem is data leaks, this scared me so much that passing any KYC verification again will be very hard, I don't even want to do KYC anymore because they are not safe.

Sometimes data are not leak, they are deliberately given out for sale and that makes you want to worry how your information are stored and if they are kept in a safe place. When kyc was still offline where information afr collected in legder for the governments institution, they were never a problem but since everything became online, they are more worrying like the way they were, people do what they like especially if it can give them money.

I don't know why most of this private companies don't know how to handle people's info. It's always hard to see government institutions are hack, that is because they spend much money on their backend. These private companies don't care if kyc information are hack or stolen, this is why you should not do kyc in any all the place that ask for them.

[Cryptomultiplier]

They have no option but to follow what's being applied to them by these regulators.
If they're good enough and this is the process that they have to go, I might think of it before continuing.
Because until now, there are still casinos that requires no kyc. For example in bitz, it allows me to withdraw without question.
So before it was exchanges being too strict with the deposits, now it's going to be casinos? didn't foresee this.

No one forsees any new policies that come up because it is never to our benefit but to the benefit of the regulators and business platform owners.
This new rules definitely creates a massive trust concern because so far the rate of cryptocurrency hacks has risen tremendously and thus has prompted such policies that is sort of intrusive into player wallets and transactions history.

I wonder to what end when they should be more concerned about stopping these hackers by protecting their systems with fail proof security system, instead of enforcing stricter rules.