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

[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.

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.

Because majority of the casinos would like users to simply deposit and gamble.
But right now, this is going to be different. They're acting the same as exchanges sourcing out where the funds came.
They're just only obeying the regulations being carried out to them and so, we're always affected by it.

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.

They gotta prove themselves worthy of the compliance by their users for entrusting them with their ids.

[tiCeR]

Since there are some big names out there offering no KYC crypto gambling, I haver never fully understood how they pull it off without getting under pressure from authorities when they get audited, have to prepare their tax filing and whatever else comes into question that would reveal their operations with non KYC crypto gamblers. I have been thinking whether they have some offshore spin-offs where the accounts using crypto are handled. This is just a theory, but when a fully regulated sportsbook lets you gamble on their website without requiring KYC, how is this possible?

[lombok]

Since there are some big names out there offering no KYC crypto gambling, I haver never fully understood how they pull it off without getting under pressure from authorities when they get audited, have to prepare their tax filing and whatever else comes into question that would reveal their operations with non KYC crypto gamblers. I have been thinking whether they have some offshore spin-offs where the accounts using crypto are handled. This is just a theory, but when a fully regulated sportsbook lets you gamble on their website without requiring KYC, how is this possible?

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.

[Inior]

 Casinos that require Kayak will only get boring as time goes on with this KYC modifications. I’m not a fan of KYC based casino talk more of having to review all the crypto transactions connected to the crypto I deposited, that will only make the deposit process take longer and probably waste your time. I bet this will also make a lot of gamblers lose interest in gambling and then the casinos will feel it too so it’s not a one sided problem.

[Cantsay]

From what I got from the Op, the only thing I see happening is just an increased number of no-KYC, unlicensed casinos popping up, and if the requirements cost these casinos to lose a very high number of users, then the churning for Curacao would simply increase, while the next best option would take its place and if it cuts across other licenses as well then unlicensed ones would rock the industry.

[Japinat]

From what I got from the Op, the only thing I see happening is just an increased number of no-KYC, unlicensed casinos popping up, and if the requirements cost these casinos to lose a very high number of users, then the churning for Curacao would simply increase, while the next best option would take its place and if it cuts across other licenses as well then unlicensed ones would rock the industry.

No KYC does not mean that unlicensed casinos are popping up. Because there are casinos that are called no KYC but they actually have a license, and there are also casinos being called unlicensed but they actually have an offshore license. For instance in a certain country where they have local regulations for the gambling industry, any casino offering services to their citizens without a local license is considered an unlicensed casino, but they cannot stop their citizens from accessing them because people want to gamble with ease and no KYC casinos have fulfilled that.

[Natalim]

Casinos that require Kayak will only get boring as time goes on with this KYC modifications.

What's "kayak" ? 

I’m not a fan of KYC based casino talk more of having to review all the crypto transactions connected to the crypto I deposited, that will only make the deposit process take longer and probably waste your time. I bet this will also make a lot of gamblers lose interest in gambling and then the casinos will feel it too so it’s not a one sided problem.

We'll complain if we have no choice, but for now even though regulations in general have really become stricter, there are still casinos operating in countries or islands that are not as strict as others, like for instance we have Anjouan, many casinos have moved to this license provider so they can operate with fewer restrictions, so as long as there are license providers like them we can continue to enjoy no KYC treatment.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

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.

Anjouan and other jurisdictions may wish to take advantage of this, but my fear is that tomorrow those jurisdictions will be forced to implement the same measures and, in the end, there will be no casinos left where you can gamble without KYC. In the case of Curaçao, it is a further step in wanting to know the source of funds. It’s something we’ve been noticing: in recent years, more and more casinos have been requiring KYC, and many of those that advertise as ‘no KYC’ actually do include KYC requirements in their Terms and Conditions.

Ultimately, the path forward is clear: the authorities will want to treat cryptocurrency casinos in the same way as fiat casinos, where you are completely under their control, and jurisdictions that currently turn a blind eye to this will eventually be forced to comply – although let’s hope it takes quite a few years yet.

[YOSHIE]

By June 2027, Curaçao-licensed crypto casinos will be expected to know much more about your wallet, your transactions and potentially the source of your funds. The awkward part is that this tightening comes just after someone spent months inside the regulator’s own portal under a false identity.

Indeed, it could be said that the majority of crypto online gambling platforms that are internationally licensed, such as the Curacao license, are indeed obliged to carry out KYC, but there are quite a few locally licensed online casinos that operate without KYC.

As far as I know, it is rare for online gambling platforms to require KYC with an international license. In general, online casinos often take advantage of crypto anonymity loopholes, The goal is to avoid tracking transactions, a situation that makes licensing companies like Curacao narrow the scope for rogue online casinos.

By requiring KYC licensed casinos at least the party issuing the license can know the flow of funds in real-time, so that when a casino is detected carrying out illegal activities, at least the licensing party can freeze the online casino, even though the KYC situation does have a significant impact on online gambling players, it is already the player's risk.

[Cantsay]

From what I got from the Op, the only thing I see happening is just an increased number of no-KYC unlicensed casinos popping up, and if the requirements cost these casinos to lose a very high number of users, then the churning for Curacao would simply increase, while the next best option would take its place and if it cuts across other licenses as well then unlicensed ones would rock the industry.

No KYC does not mean that unlicensed casinos are popping up. Because there are casinos that are called no KYC but they actually have a license, and there are also casinos being called unlicensed but they actually have an offshore license. For instance in a certain country where they have local regulations for the gambling industry, any casino offering services to their citizens without a local license is considered an unlicensed casino, but they cannot stop their citizens from accessing them because people want to gamble with ease and no KYC casinos have fulfilled that.

I think the comma (,) between my no-KYC and unlicensed changed the meaning of my sentence. I have changed it so you can read it again.

Then again, this thread is talking about Curaçao, so it is safe to say that this thread is referring to an offshore license. So when I say unlicensed, I don't mean those with an offshore license but lack a local license in a particular jurisdiction (for those that require you to have one).

Like I said in my previous response, if this whole change is going to cost these platforms a significant number of their users, then we should expect that a lot of them would switch to other licenses to continue their operation. It might be a bit more expensive, but that is better than losing your users.

[Mutuvasilin]

From what I got from the Op, the only thing I see happening is just an increased number of no-KYC, unlicensed casinos popping up, and if the requirements cost these casinos to lose a very high number of users, then the churning for Curacao would simply increase, while the next best option would take its place and if it cuts across other licenses as well then unlicensed ones would rock the industry.

I lean toward that outcome too since what else is left for them if tighter rules cost them most of their players. Some will just move to the next licence that is easier and others will go without one. In the end the players are the ones who end up with less protection.

[Cantsay]

From what I got from the Op, the only thing I see happening is just an increased number of no-KYC, unlicensed casinos popping up, and if the requirements cost these casinos to lose a very high number of users, then the churning for Curacao would simply increase, while the next best option would take its place and if it cuts across other licenses as well then unlicensed ones would rock the industry.

I lean toward that outcome too since what else is left for them if tighter rules cost them most of their players. Some will just move to the next licence that is easier and others will go without one. In the end the players are the ones who end up with less protection.

Any company or service provider that thinks that they won't be replaced and, because of that, they want to start making things difficult for their customers would find out real soon that they were not the only one available. You are replaceable, they just haven't had a reason to replace you yet, and if Curaçao pushes these platforms to the edge, they wouldn't mind what it would cost them to switch.

[Nwada001]

Casinos that require Kayak will only get boring as time goes on with this KYC modifications. I’m not a fan of KYC based casino talk more of having to review all the crypto transactions connected to the crypto I deposited, that will only make the deposit process take longer and probably waste your time. I bet this will also make a lot of gamblers lose interest in gambling and then the casinos will feel it too so it’s not a one sided problem.

It will get boring for you but never for them. The more the KYC stuff is advancing, the more they will update their term of service based on regulatory requirements, and checking of coin origin doesn't take as much time as you think; they have an algorithm set up already which handles that, and deposits don’t get delayed unless on special occasions where the users' deposit is detected to come from a blacklisted address.

[serjent05]

The government is trying its best to regulate gambling, and we can feel that the regulations have greatly affected crypto casinos because some crypto casinos that used to not implement mandatory KYC are now requiring their players to at least comply with level 2 KYC, where players need to submit a valid government-issued ID and, for some, a picture holding the ID and the platform name with a date on it.

Although there are crypto casinos that do not require KYC, I feel that there is a possibility that the regulators will force them to implement KYC once their platform is huge enough to be noticed by the authorities.  If we look at the trend on how KYC was implemented on crypto casinos that were once not KYC-mandatory, it is undeniable to say and think that regulators won't stop pressuring crypto casinos to implement their regulations.

[Mia Chloe]

Any company or service provider that thinks that they won't be replaced and, because of that, they want to start making things difficult for their customers would find out real soon that they were not the only one available. You are replaceable, they just haven't had a reason to replace you yet, and if Curaçao pushes these platforms to the edge, they wouldn't mind what it would cost them to switch.

I genuinely don't think it is actually about trying to make things difficult for their players. Most of them want to top the charts with their marketing by excluding KYC however on the other hand most license across different regions actually kinda imply casinos take KYC information.

This is one of the reasons you'll discover many casinos are running without concrete licence because it probably could limit their marketing especially for smaller ones.

[lombok]

The government is trying its best to regulate gambling, and we can feel that the regulations have greatly affected crypto casinos because some crypto casinos that used to not implement mandatory KYC are now requiring their players to at least comply with level 2 KYC, where players need to submit a valid government-issued ID and, for some, a picture holding the ID and the platform name with a date on it.

Although there are crypto casinos that do not require KYC, I feel that there is a possibility that the regulators will force them to implement KYC once their platform is huge enough to be noticed by the authorities.  If we look at the trend on how KYC was implemented on crypto casinos that were once not KYC-mandatory, it is undeniable to say and think that regulators won't stop pressuring crypto casinos to implement their regulations.

The increasing number of transactions is always drawing much focus from policymakers. The online betting platforms which had initially assured complete anonymity are slowly realizing that either they shut shop or comply with the necessary documentation process required by the regulatory authorities. It is not merely a formality to provide personal identification documents and photos, but serves as an insurance policy against being blacklisted for obtaining any international betting licenses. Pressure from regulators all over the world ensures that there are no cracks left for online betting platforms to operate anonymously. Eventually, online betting platforms with huge numbers of players will fall under centralized regulation.