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

[Pandu Geddon]

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.

[Outhue]

Don't make deposits on random online casinos, you can go through hell trying to withdraw money from them, which is why I support the motion that no KYC is generally not a bad idea or calling for gamblers, but unfortunately they are all getting weaker because the laws are after them or will eventually go after them, all it takes is a casino doing better and attracting the audience more than other online casinos and they will get their doors knocked one day.

[Captain Corporate]

Don't make deposits on random online casinos, you can go through hell trying to withdraw money from them, which is why I support the motion that no KYC is generally not a bad idea or calling for gamblers, but unfortunately they are all getting weaker because the laws are after them or will eventually go after them, all it takes is a casino doing better and attracting the audience more than other online casinos and they will get their doors knocked one day.

In my understanding, if you are a casino owner and you want to be in no KYC model then you must focus only for online casino business and if you try for physical operation then technically there would be no safer zone for you to have your head quarter. No KYC casinos are in favour of gamblers rather than focusing on compliance with government regulations whereas casinos itself scamming its players when they win big money kind of actions by casino is also increasing hence regulations and physical presence by a casino seems more important from the view of whale gamblers.

Regulators also in support of gamblers against casino still I guess there would be more benefits to gamblers with no KYC casinos given that you play for entertainment purposes. Because, most scammy casinos will show their true face only when you hit their 'withdraw' button.

[Tetu100]

There are only a few honest no KYC casinos still operating. I'm sure you've missed some of the discussions on gambling boards about new casinos joining the community and making claims about being no-KYC. For many of them, it's nothing more than a marketing strategy.

They claim to be no-KYC because they understand that many crypto players prefer these casinos due to privacy concerns. So, they use this claim to attract players and build trust, even when they have no intention of keeping that promise. At some point, they end up asking for your documents before allowing you to withdraw your funds, despite claiming from the beginning that they don't require KYC.

Then to what extent and how long will such trust that was built on deceitfulness last? Because to me once I notice sure from any casino, you are as good you don't exist. You have messed up your reputable yourself and nothing will ever make me see you serious to the extent of having any business with you.

Again, what casino owners fail to understand is that sincerity and when you're truthful, that alone is a marketing strategy on its own. Because people will easily trust and respect your brand, they will feel more saved with their details with you then someone that says a whole lot about their business and fail to keep to any of those promises.
 

[$crypto$]

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.

There are still many other casinos that do not ask for KYC, so the complicated ones leave, the lighter ones no new KYC we stay and play there, although the KYC policy is now almost all in their ToS anyway we can avoid how to play on our own.

You get a big jackpot, just do KYC because that big amount can change your life.
If requiring KYC does not get anything it is better not to continue sending documents only.

[Die_empty]

Yes, here is the big question: with all these major changes and strict new regulations, is it still economically viable to hold a Curaçao license? I believe many companies will reconsider.

This is a new type of  (KYC) process that relies not only on a user's personal data but also on their wallet data and transaction history. Consequently, things will never be as simple as they once were; this may well eliminate or significantly diminish the key advantages of using cryptocurrencies.

Some gambling companies were moving towards securing Anjouan licenses, as Curaçao requirements and costs increased. But Anjouan license providers are now under strict scrutiny as the Comorian authorities are coming up with a suit alleging unauthorized licensing activities.

All these tight regulations would propel the popularity of unregistered casinos. Those who don't want to expose their financial details will just patronize unregulated platforms.

[SatsPH]

Don't make deposits on random online casinos, you can go through hell trying to withdraw money from them, which is why I support the motion that no KYC is generally not a bad idea or calling for gamblers, but unfortunately they are all getting weaker because the laws are after them or will eventually go after them, all it takes is a casino doing better and attracting the audience more than other online casinos and they will get their doors knocked one day.

Sometimes though, there is KYC documents that a casino would ask and we can't provide it. I just read about a casino asking for a pay slip as part of their casino. But the gamblers says that he doesn't have a job and so there is trouble there.

I guess there should be some kind of boundaries as to what KYC casino ask and not just some random things that we can't give to them right away. I guess identification and some proof of income is enough.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

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.

[danherbias07]

They need to get stricter with their gambling rules, but going over the wallets of the users is excessive. There should be a wall that will not allow this, license makers or whatever their business is. There will be a line they will cross, and I think they should just check the gambling site, not the gamblers.
I think the gambling sites should be the ones protecting the gamblers by securing their account data and everything. KYC should stop there, and it should not go through those regulators who will give licenses. Just check the gambling sites about their business and their background but they should not go beyond it.

[Fortify]

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.

That combination makes the latest Curaçao story much bigger than a data breach. The jurisdiction is rebuilding the rules of offshore crypto gambling.

For players, the practical result will be less anonymity and less freedom in how crypto moves through a casino. For operators, accepting crypto is about to become considerably more expensive and complicated.

It's interesting that they are going this route and there must be a reason behind it. Maybe Curacao are trying to position themselves in an "elite" niche of offshore providers that actually have a competent regulator. This might give them some cover and allow casinos registered there to operate in certain markets that are not open to other providers. Most major countries are wising up and getting sick of the offshore island nations selling the owner privacy and no tax "perks" which can hide wrong doing. They could be trying to get ahead of a crackdown on other islands selling licenses without any due diligence. They might think they're untouchable but pressure can be applied by America and Europe if they get cut off from payment networks or even have officials targeted with sanctions until they cooperate. Right now these bubbles of hidden wealth are actually quite detrimental to the average person and only benefit the super wealthy.

[Cointxz]

They need to get stricter with their gambling rules, but going over the wallets of the users is excessive. There should be a wall that will not allow this, license makers or whatever their business is. There will be a line they will cross, and I think they should just check the gambling site, not the gamblers.
I think the gambling sites should be the ones protecting the gamblers by securing their account data and everything. KYC should stop there, and it should not go through those regulators who will give licenses. Just check the gambling sites about their business and their background but they should not go beyond it.

I thought their update recently is by requirement their operators to declare their ADR to protect players on dispute.

This new update is new to me and probably one of the reason why casino is now ditching Curacao license and availing Anjouan and Costa Rica based license since they are are still more lenient on KYC requirements for players which most crypto gambler preferred.

This update makes me hesitant to play on any Curacao license casino.

[mirakal]

KYC should stop there, and it should not go through those regulators who will give licenses. Just check the gambling sites about their business and their background but they should not go beyond it.

Casinos could only argue against that if it's not part of the regulations but if it is, then they have no choice but to comply. Their responsibility is to ensure that we are informed of that process so we will not be surprised if our data is shared with the regulators.

Honestly if I could choose, I would rather have the regulators keep our KYC information than the casinos themselves.

if there's a third party controlled by the regulators where we can complete KYC, I think that would be safer.

[JoyceBTC]

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.

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.

Moving from one casino to another, sharing your personal information is not advisable because you don’t know how secure your information is with those different casinos you are moving to and why not just stick to one, although no harm in trying a different casino. I’m just saying since players don’t get comfortable with the whole KYC verification issue, why move from a casino which you are already using and your information is with them based on the trust you have for them and then move to another which will still ask for KYC verification only because the previous casino Tightened their verification. At the end even if you move to a different one, I agree it still arrives at same result because the casino now still has your information or even if you moved from the previous one because you’re were avoiding providing your information because of a particular document.

[danadc]

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.

Sooner or later, things will happen this way. Casinos that don't have KYC are trying something many others aren't: attracting customers through privacy and anonymity. But it's not entirely straightforward, because I've seen cases where, when it comes time to withdraw money, they force players to complete KYC, and they do it rigorously with many additional requirements.

When KYC was implemented, many players preferred to play in land-based casinos rather than online casinos. In crypto, necessary measures must be taken to avoid revealing our identities because everything revolves around money, and as things stand, it's easy for hackers to launch attacks.

[Smartprofit]

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.

Sooner or later, things will happen this way. Casinos that don't have KYC are trying something many others aren't: attracting customers through privacy and anonymity. But it's not entirely straightforward, because I've seen cases where, when it comes time to withdraw money, they force players to complete KYC, and they do it rigorously with many additional requirements.

When KYC was implemented, many players preferred to play in land-based casinos rather than online casinos. In crypto, necessary measures must be taken to avoid revealing our identities because everything revolves around money, and as things stand, it's easy for hackers to launch attacks.

I remember reading about the very first online casinos that allowed gambling using Bitcoin. Not only did they have no KYC procedures, they didn't even have player accounts! You simply sent your satoshi to the casino's address, and if you won, you'd get a large sum back. These were completely anonymous online casinos that didn't even require players to provide an email address (let alone disclose detailed personal information). 🙋

As far as I understand, all these stricter licensing requirements from Curacao regulators are related to FATF requirements.

As always, all this is being done in lip service to public safety. But in my opinion, the world isn't getting safer! On the contrary, it's becoming increasingly dangerous and unpredictable... I wonder why this is happening. 🤔

It seems as if there's a single control center in the world.  This center sends commands to peripheral organizations to exercise total control over all financial and information flows at the local level. This is why KYC and ANL are now being implemented everywhere. Countries like Curaçao comply with these directives from the control center, although it is clear that in the short and medium term, this will lead to a reduction in budget revenues for these small countries.

[Nwada001]

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.

[Royal Cap]

Don't make deposits on random online casinos, you can go through hell trying to withdraw money from them, which is why I support the motion that no KYC is generally not a bad idea or calling for gamblers, but unfortunately they are all getting weaker because the laws are after them or will eventually go after them, all it takes is a casino doing better and attracting the audience more than other online casinos and they will get their doors knocked one day.

But I don't believe that there is such a thing as a non KYC casino. It's a different matter with decentralized casinos, but I don't trust centralized casinos that claim to be no KYC. Because if you win a big amount on those platforms, they will ask you for KYC verification, and even address verification. For this reason, I think that if privacy is to be given to us, it should be given as soon as the casino account is opened.  This way we don't have to face any problems later.