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

[tiCeR]

...

Indeed, most major cryptocurrency betting websites bypass tough requirements of identifying players via officially registering themselves in offshore jurisdictions such as Curacao or Costa Rica. Small islands are usually ready to provide gambling license without imposing any requirements regarding information about players who only have digital assets.

Important company units are intentionally split by creating multi level shells to bypass the tax system of bigger nations. In case of financial inspections, reports are made on total company profits but not about particular transactions since the money flow is completely controlled by decentralized blockchain technologies. Every loophole in the system of international borders is used to its full extent, providing crypto casino operators with the possibility of operating legally by following local regulations but not being subjected to any regulation pressure.

Which renders those licenses de facto worthless. That is why it is not important if a casino is licensed, but where and how. They hand out licenses because they work hand in hand with rather shady casinos who can afford to not demand KYC. The reason being that they can present themselves as if they have obtained a license from a valid institution. Most people - me included - have no idea what license to watch out for. I never did research on that part and just went with the most trustworthy casinos and betting platforms we have here on the forum. In almost all cases, this was pretty good overall guidance.

If you think about how many of the really reputable casinos went rogue here after they have had some good time, it's a very low number.

[o48o]

no I don't feel it because I'm not gambling on casinos that require KYC.

Look at the Gambling Announcements section, you will see a lot of casinos that are proudly marketing themselves as no KYC.

So they are still giving us an option to gamble despite the government becoming stricter in general, these casinos find a way to still give us some privacy.

We should thank them.

Thing is, it doesn't probably matter if you manage to gamble in a casino that yet doesn't require KYC. Because what are you going to do with that money you win?

Every fiat ramp and most services you are currently using to pay with cryptos will need to follow same regulations for the same reasons. It might not be an issue yet, or with small amounts, but bigger amounts you are dealing with, more likely you are not going to be able to operate anonymously or even behind a pseudonym.

They have entered next phase of enforcing AML laws and North Korea hacking binance probably just accelerated the timeframe.

[Zaka1221]

The problem is the government, We want to have a casino with licence to operate but getting that needs the approval of the government and that will require them to follow the law.
And the law wants casino to operate in a recorded way and tracking on its gambler. Which KYC will take place. This is the world and government we will end up with a casino with KYC, all of them if they are legal.

The government doesn't want to back down. Anything that has to do with tracking all our moves is where you will see them, and I also believe it is the main reason why they are increasing demand for documents needed to pass KYC verification. Since there is a limit to how they can track crypto transactions like they can trace the origin of fiat, they decided to use other means. Just that some casinos are known to be asking for a few impossible things.

Governments always want to keep things under their control. Just because of this, in early days, Bitcoin had never been under their policy, but now, as they are understanding and having enough knowledge and awareness of how to control things, they are bringing policies to allow Bitcoin but with their own rules.
Crypto through KYC was always into their strategy, but now as they are tightening things, it's giving them enough space and chances to have all about gamblers, which is not an ideal situation for people who want to live an anonymous life in gambling in countries where they are not having enough things to control.
They are still not allowing people to have access through casinos or exchanges because they feel it's not going to be helpful for them, but many are allowing it, but they are also taking enough documents about players.

[Webetcoins]

Noone needs to scan my wallet for shit, I get that they are looking for dirty funds or whatever, but they are going way overboard. What's the point of bitcoin or crypto at this point? Where's the privacy? May as well just stick to going to IRL casinos and forget crypto if it keeps going in this direction.

With a licensed casino, we cannot expect any privacy even we opt for using cryptocurrencies. Now, casinos are doubting the origin of our coins like how they did with stolen cards. Still unlike traditional payment system, with cryptocurrencies, we can easily bypass their restrictions because already lots of solutions are available. Already many exchanges are asking about the source of the coins being deposited with them and no casinos may simply follow that, it seems.

I read that some governments are trying form a federation to co-operate each other regarding crypto usage. I fear like my government will know about my gambling activities and how much I do spend on gambling even I play on a off-shore casino using a VPN. Seems like harder days are ahead if I still look for my favourite places alone to gamble with.

[Asuspawer09]

I mean in the first place gambling was always been a thing to regulators they take advantage of that since they know that they could earn a lot of the business, it is what is happening here locally most of the gambling platforms are banned here in my country and only registered platform can mostly operate even though other gambling platforms mostly popular or international can only be access if you really know what you are doing. Crypto is also what regulators are looking at because of the money and illegal activitiers combine that with gambling it is surely going to be the focus of most regulators and KYC is one of the thing to regulate that.

I see a lot of them requiring KYC, but I still could easily go on other platforms it's still didn't feel like I needed to do a lot of things just to bypass KYC. There are still ways to not do it if you want to, and definitely I was not forced right now. So I think there was a little bit of tightening in KYC, but it's not to the point where we need to panic.

[Odusko]

There have been over concentrations towards some regulated casinos, I mean those that are top in the game, the reason is because those big casinos have build their reputation plus alot other security that make every attempt by attacker's to bring them down almost impossible, but if there is no regulation that limits the casino operations to only regulated and licensed casino only and most popular, this make all eyes on both the casinos and their player's both from regulators and also some hacks that could affect gambler's own balance.

[adultcrypto]

This is a major source of concern for all user of cryptocurrency casinos. Normally, we are not supposed to be subjected to KYC that is in disagreement with the idea of privacy that is enshrined in the design of bitcoin. But gradually that idea of privacy in being eroded in cryptocurrency and we have to live with that. My fear is not performing KYC but how our information are handled because not all platforms are legitimate and handing over sensitive information to criminals could be disastrous to players.  Wish we really have a choice in this.

[noxswap]

Thing is, it doesn't probably matter if you manage to gamble in a casino that yet doesn't require KYC. Because what are you going to do with that money you win?

Agree with you on the bigger amounts. Once you cash out to fiat you hit KYC somewhere, there is no way around it and honestly that's fair.

What I'd do is not leave the winnings sitting in the casino account. Withdraw to your own wallet, then at least nobody can freeze it while they "review" you.

And if you use the smaller no-KYC services, read what they actually do when a deposit gets flagged. Some refund you, some just hold the coins for months. That tells you more than the "no KYC" banner on their homepage.

[Dave1]

This is a major source of concern for all user of cryptocurrency casinos. Normally, we are not supposed to be subjected to KYC that is in disagreement with the idea of privacy that is enshrined in the design of bitcoin. But gradually that idea of privacy in being eroded in cryptocurrency and we have to live with that. My fear is not performing KYC but how our information are handled because not all platforms are legitimate and handing over sensitive information to criminals could be disastrous to players.  Wish we really have a choice in this.

Your concern has been proven already, as there are casinos that have been hack and potentially the data of their customers has been compromised and we don't know what do this hackers are going to do with it.

And one possibility is the $5 wrench attack as we have seen that it has been ramping up. Yeah, it's part and parcel of being in crypto world right now, regulators are so called inventing the wheel of KYC to the point that it is absurd already for us as we have to submitted a lot of documents and still not be able to withdraw for some of us.

[xenomorfo]

I mean in the first place gambling was always been a thing to regulators they take advantage of that since they know that they could earn a lot of the business, it is what is happening here locally most of the gambling platforms are banned here in my country and only registered platform can mostly operate even though other gambling platforms mostly popular or international can only be access if you really know what you are doing. Crypto is also what regulators are looking at because of the money and illegal activitiers combine that with gambling it is surely going to be the focus of most regulators and KYC is one of the thing to regulate that.

I see a lot of them requiring KYC, but I still could easily go on other platforms it's still didn't feel like I needed to do a lot of things just to bypass KYC. There are still ways to not do it if you want to, and definitely I was not forced right now. So I think there was a little bit of tightening in KYC, but it's not to the point where we need to panic.

And who's to say that gambling has to be a matter for the authorities?
There are also unlicensed casinos advertised here but they are honest casinos. It is definitely not a license that makes you honest or not but the way you operate and think about business such as transparency regarding KYC.

[Crypto Library]

There have been over concentrations towards some regulated casinos, I mean those that are top in the game, the reason is because those big casinos have build their reputation plus alot other security that make every attempt by attacker's to bring them down almost impossible, but if there is no regulation that limits the casino operations to only regulated and licensed casino only and most popular, this make all eyes on both the casinos and their player's both from regulators and also some hacks that could affect gambler's own balance.

I would disagree with you that even though casinos have invested a lot in building their reputation for a long time and are still doing so, even though they are building up their security, we still see hacking incidents in those reputable casinos after a few years. Even a few days ago, we saw two casinos close down, and I hope you are also aware of the hacking incident at Duelbits.
In fact, no matter how hard they try to strengthen security, we will still see such incidents once in a while. But the main point here is how those casinos are actually handling hacking incidents.
We definitely will not put such casinos on our list that are going bankrupt and shutting down their services due to being hacked.

[angrybirdy]

The problem is the government, We want to have a casino with licence to operate but getting that needs the approval of the government and that will require them to follow the law.
And the law wants casino to operate in a recorded way and tracking on its gambler. Which KYC will take place. This is the world and government we will end up with a casino with KYC, all of them if they are legal.

The idea of getting a license means that one should be ready to comply with the terms which go with it. It goes without saying that the government will never allow any casino to operate under a legal umbrella without proper monitoring, recording of transactions, and KYC verification of gamblers... KYC is, for me, an inevitable requirement rather than an obligation which casinos may neglect. The government needs to control all financial operations, prevent any money laundering processes and monitor casino operators' activities... Casinos cannot pretend that they want to obtain the privileges of having a license and refuse from complying with certain conditions.

In a word, one has no other choice but to obey the law if he/she wants to open his/her own casino legally. We may have various views regarding KYC, but we must admit that this is our legal obligation. This is how it works in the sphere of legal gambling operations.

[Orpichukwu]

Licensing, but what do players usually fear? They leave one casino because of KYC rules and go to another that asks for KYC. The difference is the type of document, but at the end, it all arrives at the same result: every piece of information given out to the user goes to the casino.

If providing personal information to a casino feels too burdensome, then just switch to a casino that does not require KYC. But when regulations eventually make a policy change, casinos that initially did not require users to perform KYC can also update their policies. What may be done is probably just moving from casino to casino as you mentioned. Because there is a possibility that new casinos will continue to emerge as a solution to gamblers' concerns.

Sometimes we gamblers are the problem. We don’t like KYC, yet we can stick with one casino, like I have casinos where I play frequently because I have already passed verification over there, and I don’t have the intention to add more to the list. People can go with that same method because we have very limited options when talking about casinos that completely don’t ask for KYC.

[uneng]

And who's to say that gambling has to be a matter for the authorities?
There are also unlicensed casinos advertised here but they are honest casinos. It is definitely not a license that makes you honest or not but the way you operate and think about business such as transparency regarding KYC.

As far as I remember crypto casinos were created in first place to offer customers an alternative to the bureaucratic and centralized fiat online casinos. The proposal was to be simplest and most accessible as possible. You could create an account in a minute, deposit money, bet and then cashout without any interferences. But since regulations took place in this industry, crypto casinos stopped being an alternative and have just become more of the same.

It's a complicated situation casinos face. At same time, if they don't follow the regulations imposed, they will be very limited on their operations, and may face harsh punishments from authorities.

[Asuspawer09]

I mean in the first place gambling was always been a thing to regulators they take advantage of that since they know that they could earn a lot of the business, it is what is happening here locally most of the gambling platforms are banned here in my country and only registered platform can mostly operate even though other gambling platforms mostly popular or international can only be access if you really know what you are doing. Crypto is also what regulators are looking at because of the money and illegal activitiers combine that with gambling it is surely going to be the focus of most regulators and KYC is one of the thing to regulate that.

I see a lot of them requiring KYC, but I still could easily go on other platforms it's still didn't feel like I needed to do a lot of things just to bypass KYC. There are still ways to not do it if you want to, and definitely I was not forced right now. So I think there was a little bit of tightening in KYC, but it's not to the point where we need to panic.

And who's to say that gambling has to be a matter for the authorities?
There are also unlicensed casinos advertised here but they are honest casinos. It is definitely not a license that makes you honest or not but the way you operate and think about business such as transparency regarding KYC.

Not saying anything about being an unlicensed casino means it is not a legitimate casino. I mean, the most popular casinos are not licensed here in my country, it is just that they weren't licensed only here in my country, but it doesnt mean they are not registered in their own country. Still, most of the popular and best gambling websites are not registered here locally, it is just a thing here because our government wants to take money from everything these days.

The government here locally is just very strict, so they want to regulate everything to extract money, so KYC is just the thing for that, they are going to put KYC on everything just to regulate and make money on it.

[Hispo]

Sometimes we gamblers are the problem. We don’t like KYC, yet we can stick with one casino, like I have casinos where I play frequently because I have already passed verification over there, and I don’t have the intention to add more to the list. People can go with that same method because we have very limited options when talking about casinos that completely don’t ask for KYC.

I think there would be less controversy when it came to KYC as AML if people actually just stuck to a single casino with already having submitted their personal information to it once.

There is less of a risk of getting one's personal information hacked and sold in the dark markets if only one or two casinos have access to it. It is similar to exchanges and eny other internet service.

But there is a population of gamblers who actually enjoy to jump from a service to another, seeking to get advantage of welcome bonuses.

Nobody has a problem with Google having one's personal information, because there is only a single Google.