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

[emefewi]

The problem is that too many casinos that claim to be no KYC turn out to be fans of the procedure... If you have any like that please share your experience 

sportbet.one is one example of a crypto sportsbook that doesn't require the usual ID documents. Their terms still allow account checks and payouts to be paused if they suspect abuse though.
So I'd be careful with the whole "no KYC" label. It's worth checking the withdrawal rules and past complaints, not just what a site says on its homepage.

[arwin100]

A casino has to be registered some or the other place. An unregistered casino will never comply with AML and can be shut down by the agencies at any moment. Government agencies are actually hunting these unregistered casinos because most of the illegal money is often moved onto these platforms just because no agency is tracking the transactions.

Really? How do you explain that bitvest.io has never been shut down by authorities? It has been operating for more than a decade. Lightlord had another casino as well, that wasn't shut down by authorities either. Freebitco.in operated for many years without a license without being shot down either. In fact, I don't recall anyone on the forum mentioning that any casino had been shut down for not having a license.

I think their crypto only integration, then no jurisdiction attached on where they are originated. Also we can add up that they are pure anonymous. Make governments think that they don't have jurisdiction to attack Bitvest.

For those who forget about it, or didn't know they have other running casino before. They could read their thread and to see what happen with their old platform https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238323.0

[knowngunman]

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.

Marketing themselves as no KYC is different from being a no KYC. Most casinos market themselves as no KYC but they are fully not what they claimed to be. If you gamble with little money and your winning is not a life changing amount, you won't know it but the moment you hit a jackpot or win significant amount, that's when you'll discover the truth. If you read their terms very well, you might find it hidden somewhere.

01 / The casino will look at the wallet, not only the person behind it.

Traditional KYC asks who you are. The new framework adds another question: where did your crypto come from?

Another opportunity for casinos to start freezing accounts claiming the source of funds is not pure or suspicious. So what will happen to your deposit if any problem is detected? Refund back to deposit address or freezed by the casinos?

02 / Deposit here, withdraw wherever you want becomes harder.

One of the conveniences of crypto gambling has always been the ability to move funds between different wallets and assets. Curaçao may tighten that flow.

The default principle is that withdrawals should return to the wallet and asset used for the deposit. Whitelisted withdrawal addresses are also part of the framework scheduled for full implementation by June 2027.

This is not right at all. It should be optional in my opinion. What if I pay someone fiat to deposit directly to my casino wallet? I should withdraw to their address as well? This part needs to be reviewed.

[perfect999]

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.

Not just the casinos, but entire crypto space was supposed to be decentralised but now as government agencies are joining in, some strict rules and regulations are brought in place. Casinos are the ones who majorly got hit by this change because they lost a major chunk of users just because they started asking for ID verifications to be compliant with the government bodies.

Not everyone here in cryptos world is ready to reveal their identity which made a few people stop using those casinos and simply move to centralised or local casinos. I would say the rules are still a bit lenient as of now and things might just keep getting worst as government bodies will tighten their grips on casinos because of the number of exit scams identified in the past.

[Itz-prisigold]

We felt that KYC was pressuring us, but it is not. We can choose to leave the casino, requiring it if we don't like the system. In fact, KYC doesn't guarantee that we are safe, nor that the casino won't scam us. The same goes for those casinos that are KYC-free.

Urging the casino to do KYC for the gambler is a requirement, and of course, the casino follows as they don't have another option as well, especially when they are securing legalities.

At the end of the day, we have the freedom to choose. Besides, we're not dying for it.

Yeah it’s true that players have the freedom of select the casino they would like to play at, but I believe the big question here is how much personal information will we be giving away in exchange for enjoying a service. While KYC could be a part of the casino's regulatory necessities,  but it does not imply that all of our data is 100% secure after we provide it.

We have already seen how data exposure can occur with systems that are supposed to be secure.  So for me it's not just about not opting in or out of KYC, it's about the trust we have for the casinos in hoping that they are going to keep people’s information safe.

[o48o]

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.

But with enough winnings, also that withdrawing part quickly becomes problematical. It doesn't matter if casino says that they are not doing kyc, because this is the part where they are risking going to jail. They need to confirm who you actually are in order to shield themselves. And in some cases (this will become more typical), they need proof of origin for the money you deposited before you won.

[yhiaali3]

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.

This makes perfect sense; as the saying goes, "too much pressure leads to an explosion." In other words, overly strict regulations will drive both users and operators to seek other ways to circumvent these stringent rules.

People will always try to find better ways to circumvent these strict restrictions, and therefore governments will only get the opposite result by increasing the pressure.

[Odusko]

The problem is that too many casinos that claim to be no KYC turn out to be fans of the procedure... If you have any like that please share your experience 

sportbet.one is one example of a crypto sportsbook that doesn't require the usual ID documents. Their terms still allow account checks and payouts to be paused if they suspect abuse though.
So I'd be careful with the whole "no KYC" label. It's worth checking the withdrawal rules and past complaints, not just what a site says on its homepage.

Even though that sportbet don't require kyc documents at point of registration of account, or making bets and withdrawing from the account, it doesn't mean that their are not kyc compliance just that their don't require kyc verification for players at the point of they account registration.

Stake have opposite of that feature, on stake once you open account you have to verify before you can make deposits or play games on the casino, but both of them are still operating with same centralised model and license, No kyc casinos also belong to this category because the no kyc is just a slogan.

[Iranus]

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.

Track record of providing good service over long period and of not mistreating customer is  valuable. But in my opinion, reputation and regulatory protection are not same thing.

Many casino have been providing good service for years. However, its behavior might also change following change in ownership or any major security incident. As like as freebitco.in
In that case old positive feedback on forum will not help in recovering our fund.

Another point is that knowing the name of licence is not enough. Does that regulator have actual enforcement power against operator? Can we lodge any complaint there? To what extent are the beneficial ownership and financial accountability of the operator transparent? It is important to know this.

[DrBeer]

Unfortunately, we must recognize and accept that all governments will move to fully de-anonymize the gaming sector - especially the part that operates with cryptocurrencies. There are plenty of reasons that could be given for this - for example, anti-money laundering measures, criminal activity, and so on. I don't rule out that such problems do exist. But the main goal is to de-anonymize owners (beneficial owners) and players (potential profit recipients).

[danadc]

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.

You're right, I've always seen this as the biggest problem. When the government realized that players could play with complete freedom, without KYC, they started interfering, claiming it was to protect people. That's not true; we all know it's a dirty business where governments profit.

For me, there's nothing more to KYC than this. If they want to tighten it, it's so they have complete certainty about your data and movements, so they can catch and punish every player with their high taxes. What I'm saying is, they shouldn't have to invent any excuse to make money.

[Yeesha]

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.

The major problem is that, sometimes no KYC casinos will ask for KYC verification at some point.

 This kind of problems that the OP stated is the main reason why some people prefer no KYC casinos from the first place. Government only intervene when it realises that things are actually not working in their favor, so I think that's the reason why it intervene claiming that it is for the welfare of the people. Their plan is to know the actual number of gamblers, in order for them to know the actual taxes that they would be expecting. If KYC verification is actually for the well being of the gamblers, why is the government not addressing the issue of Insecurity/inflation for the well being of the people.

[Smartprofit]

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.

You're right, I've always seen this as the biggest problem. When the government realized that players could play with complete freedom, without KYC, they started interfering, claiming it was to protect people. That's not true; we all know it's a dirty business where governments profit.

For me, there's nothing more to KYC than this. If they want to tighten it, it's so they have complete certainty about your data and movements, so they can catch and punish every player with their high taxes. What I'm saying is, they shouldn't have to invent any excuse to make money.

I think it's not just about taxes. The key to KYC and AML procedures is government control over ordinary citizens. And this control is exercised on a global scale.🙋

In the future, humans will no longer be needed as workers or soldiers. All these functions will be performed by robots. However, it's important for those in power to ensure that ordinary people cannot encroach on their power. This requires total control. They want to have complete information about financial and information flows, including how citizens use their cryptocurrency. Taxes are secondary here; control is primary. They want to control ordinary people, training them like dogs. People are presumed guilty, which is why KYC and AML procedures were introduced, so that algorithms can decide whether a person can perform a certain action or not. Whether they can use their own money or not.

At the same time, cryptocurrencies were originally created for the freedom and independence of people.  Including the freedom to gamble and not have to explain your love for this hobby to anyone.💁

[danadc]

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). 🙋

Those were the moments, the era, when we were happy and didn't know it. This is something we may never see again. The KYC controls are quite tedious. The fact that they want so much data makes me lazy to send it, so I only have KYC forms in a few places to avoid these issues.

There's no security anymore. Security breaches are very easy for hackers to exploit. They're very focused on getting money by any means necessary. Just the Binance situation shows how precarious things are.

[Emeraldo]

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). 🙋

Those were the moments, the era, when we were happy and didn't know it. This is something we may never see again. The KYC controls are quite tedious. The fact that they want so much data makes me lazy to send it, so I only have KYC forms in a few places to avoid these issues.

There's no security anymore. Security breaches are very easy for hackers to exploit. They're very focused on getting money by any means necessary. Just the Binance situation shows how precarious things are.

Now hackers can reverse engineer any website they want to hack and check for bugs that will help them to initiate a hack successfully. Artificial intelligence has been helping these hackers to become smart at what they are doing and this is why billionaires kike Bill Gates, Elon Must, Mark Zuckerberg and others have been asking the government to control artificial intelligence or else it's going to be used for crazy instructions that will make it easier for hackers to compromise companies and projects will be getting hacked on any slightest error or bugs on their system.

[lombok]

Even though that sportbet don't require kyc documents at point of registration of account, or making bets and withdrawing from the account, it doesn't mean that their are not kyc compliance just that their don't require kyc verification for players at the point of they account registration.

Stake have opposite of that feature, on stake once you open account you have to verify before you can make deposits or play games on the casino, but both of them are still operating with same centralised model and license, No kyc casinos also belong to this category because the no kyc is just a slogan.

No mandatory need for presentation of identification papers at the very moment of registration on the gambling website is just an issue of organizing formal procedures. Stake applies the process of verification of personal data since the very first moment of entering the gambling platform, even before making the first deposit, thus leaving no space for maneuvering without identification. The centrally licensed gambling websites are still obliged by international regulatory laws to enforce the anti money laundering regulations strictly. The catchphrase no data verification used by other similar websites is just marketing trickery aimed at attracting new clients. The right of the administrators to verify transaction history, to demand unexpected verification of residency, as well as to freeze the funds while making large withdrawals is not questioned.

[Peanutswar]

There are some casinos right there required now to submit a kyc because its mandate by the regulatory so they can operate in a specific countries, others now become bias with their current casino so they neglect their privacy getting known and monitored as long as they get benefit to use and play with their casino. There are a lot of no kyc casino right there which you will feel safer seems other people aren't yet enlighten what's the benefit of anonymity and privacy is. Even the casino agreed with the data privacy one their data is leaks all of your information is now available in the internet and can't be deleted.

[Synchronice]

That can only be a problem for Curaçao because there are other jurisdictions to register to offer less tightening KYC requirements to customers and as I notice recently, Costa Rica is becoming a popular destination for that.
The funny thing is that Curaçao risks losing exactly the segment of gambling industry that helped it to make its licensing so popular. This reminds me of Malta's recent case where they plan to increase tax three times for casinos. Honestly, such restrictions will only harm them while will make other jurisdictions more popular destination for crypto casinos. The recent events have showed that our data isn't protected well and is in very vulnerable hands.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Curacao is increasing its level of suspicion regarding player transactions and tightening its requirements for casinos. I personally don't know the reason for this trend, but it's possible it won't just affect Curacao. Perhaps it's due to increased activity by money launderers, hackers, and drug dealers? In any case, ordinary players will be the first to suffer. Furthermore, Curacao is effectively undermining its own long-term interests. I don't think these verification changes will appeal to potential players.

[Chibit01]

Op I understand your concern. You want to collect more information about me, when you can't clearly protect your house. How sure am I that this new information about me will be safe in your hands. That's a major concern. Nk doubt. But before that happened, they may have a track record of high level security and that breach happened. What I do know is that nothing is 100% secured. If not now, maybe later. But eventually. What should be more of concern is whether the instruction that is affected can find a way to balance things and get back in business. That one is very good.

I think the operators are not putting enough on kn trying to protect users' data. They easily share it with third-party partners, which might be in accordance to the terms we agreed upon, but it's not right. I think we should have a rule which also protects customer data in their hand where regulators mandate them to take data protection security seriously if any users data get leaked they should be held accountable to either face penalty that way I believe they will put more effort in protecting it.