KYC operators mapped by methods

[Asuspawer09]

Usually not a big deal as long as it was written on it, saying that the website or platform just required KYC, what was mostly happening is users have no idea about it and then they would just going to get that requirements when they were on the withdrawing phase already forcing them to do the KYC because they are already commitned on the website and already have funds on there platform wallet.

I think casino required to publish these kinds of requirements, some users would just prefer to pass the KYC before even they start committing to the platform and personally I think thats a good thing since we know that it is a requirement to used the website, unlike if you think that it was not really required but end up getting shocked because they are requiring you to do KYC. I mean most of the popular website is like this and users for sure are going to trust the platform if they think they are not getting tricked into KYC.

[alegotardo]

Would you rather complete KYC before your first deposit, know a fixed verification threshold, or accept unpredictable checks in exchange for a No-KYC onboarding experience?

And should casinos be required to publish their standard verification rules without revealing their internal AML risk triggers?

Yes, all casinos should to publish your standard verification rules, as long as this does not expose the casino's sensitive operational details (such as the patterns they use to detect money laundering or attempted fraud).

But a responsible and entirely reasonable disclosure would at least include whether verification is mandatory before the first withdrawal, the deposit and withdrawal limits to unverified accounts, what types of documents they may request if necessary, the maximum time allowed to complete reviews and what happend (what is the consequences) if you refuse to undergo verification... in the case of a monetary win, for example, whether they would at least allow you to withdraw the amount you initially deposited?

Am I wrong in thinking in this way?

[Hispo]

Would you rather complete KYC before your first deposit, know a fixed verification threshold, or accept unpredictable checks in exchange for a No-KYC onboarding experience?

And should casinos be required to publish their standard verification rules without revealing their internal AML risk triggers?

I would actually feel much more comfortable if a casino allowed me to go through KYC/AML before event depositing for the first time. But that is just my personal point of view as someone who usually joins a casino when I am sure I will be using it in the long term and not just because I feel curious about it.

On the other hand, I understand people who would like to gamble without going through KYC at all, because they join multiple casinos and bookies through the year and they feel uncomfortable knowing there are dozens or hundre of services which have their personal information.

[ArabBTC]

I would actually feel much more comfortable if a casino allowed me to go through KYC/AML before event depositing for the first time. But that is just my personal point of view as someone who usually joins a casino when I am sure I will be using it in the long term and not just because I feel curious about it.

On the other hand, I understand people who would like to gamble without going through KYC at all, because they join multiple casinos and bookies through the year and they feel uncomfortable knowing there are dozens or hundre of services which have their personal information.

I just feel that most of this casinos are trying to secure their customers first, that is why during registration they don’t usually come up with so much KYC, they only bring them up later after such a customer have actually registered with them, you know that some bettors can be very impatient, especially those once that are trying to chase loses, if they try to register with a particular casino and the casino bring up lots of KYC, they might lose interest and simply use another casino with lesser KYC requirements.

It is when they have successfully played and won that the casino now uses the opportunity to demand KYC because they know that at that point the bettor doesn’t have any choice since his stake and profit is now involved, in my country of recent the government placed a particular tax on gambling but one of the casinos i use didn’t inform me officially, it was after i made a deposit and played a game and the game played that they now stopped me from withdrawing, so i now called the customer service, they told me of the current situation and asked for a particular document that they will use for the verification.

[Orpichukwu]

Would you rather complete KYC before your first deposit, know a fixed verification threshold, or accept unpredictable checks in exchange for a No-KYC onboarding experience?

If it’s a KYC casino, I will prefer the pattern which Stake and a few others make compulsory for KYC to be passed before one can be allowed to explore the full service. I will only not want to use a compulsory KYC casino when I don’t plan to play in the casino for long since I have already passed KYC in other casinos.

And should casinos be required to publish their standard verification rules without revealing their internal AML risk triggers?

Standard verification rules are normal, and if casinos are not doing it or get it listed on their TOS, for AML they won’t want to make it public, as they believe the more information players have, the more they will think of how to beat the system.

[SamReomo]

In 2017 era users weren't required to complete KYC on many crypto exchanges but this day most centralized exchanges require multiple level KYC verification to and similarly in past casinos weren't into KYC that deeply but now most casinos can ask for KYC anytime. That is why someone who plays at online casinos especially the top ones should complete the KYC after using the casino for some time to not face any issues later.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Preliminary KYC, in my opinion, is the most honest. You immediately understand that you'll have to go through verification and that you're not being deceived. Other verification options, in my opinion, range from deception to outright fraud. To be lenient, we'll call it marketing. Unfortunately, true classic sports betting doesn't exist in a decentralized form like Polymarket, although it does have internet address restrictions. Basically, we need to wait until progress catches up in this area, and we'll have decentralized sports betting and decentralized casinos without KYC.

[Junii]

A good read. This is the reality of what is happening in the gambling world today. The no kYC slogan is now being misused, and many scam casinos hide behind it only to withhold players' withdrawals after they win. Personally, I don't like sharing my personal information with casino sites, and I have never done so. But to be honest, I would rather have casinos be clear and upfront about their KYC requirements from the beginning. Players should know what to expect and decide whether they want to play on a particular site instead of facing withdrawal problems later because of KYC verification.

I used to play on BC.Game, and what you said about discretionary KYC is true. After many years of playing and making withdrawals, I was only recently asked to provide KYC documents. But no, I'm not going to submit my personal information to any casino site, so I simply stopped playing there.

Hahaha i also have some friends like you they also leave the casino when they see a kyc option and honestly sharing official documents with these casinos is not a good way in this 21st century because you have no idea what might happen because of these documents and there's no time to trust anyone right now. Also now a days the casino owners knows this psychology as well and they use this no kyc option like a marketing tactic and people also show interest in these no kyc platforms .

[xenomorfo]

Upfront KYC is not only for Stake Japan.
The main site for .com also requires you to do KYC before you play. Stake already mandatory everyone to KYC for the account, they even giving everyone money $ for the KYC. I also one of the lucky user who got 250$ for my account to be verified with minimum level 2 at the time they mandatory everyone to KYC with minimum level 2.

Unfortunately, many sites require KYC in advance and in some ways i appreciate more these sites that are honest and ask you first rather than others that lie by telling you no-KYC and then ask you when you have to withdraw (if by chance you are lucky enough to win obviously).

[5W-KILO]

Upfront KYC is not only for Stake Japan.
The main site for .com also requires you to do KYC before you play. Stake already mandatory everyone to KYC for the account, they even giving everyone money $ for the KYC. I also one of the lucky user who got 250$ for my account to be verified with minimum level 2 at the time they mandatory everyone to KYC with minimum level 2.

Yes, I actually was one who also received money from Stake.com after KYC. Yours is better. Mine was only $50, but it was worth it. I used that money to play some sports betting and somehow won.
I was only on a level 1 KYC back then. Just my phone number and email address were registered. No other information or identification was submitted. Then, the mandatory KYC came, and that's when I didn't even think twice about doing it. Stake.com had been a reputable online casino and sportsbook for me, so there's no doubt I would submit it all.

You felt there is nothing wrong in passing KYC after you see the trust in Stake, not bad but some people don't joke with their information online, those people will gladly walk away from Stake if they can.

I don't like been asked KYC after several activities on a casino, I feel like it's a process of cheating me simply because I won on the casino, which is why I prefer passing that KYC verification before any gambling activities.

I understand that Stake is big enough, they care about their reputation but what about someone who don't want to keep using one online casino? I've used Stake too and I lost some money.

[Hatchy]

Hahaha i also have some friends like you they also leave the casino when they see a kyc option and honestly sharing official documents with these casinos is not a good way in this 21st century because you have no idea what might happen because of these documents and there's no time to trust anyone right now. Also now a days the casino owners knows this psychology as well and they use this no kyc option like a marketing tactic and people also show interest in these no kyc platforms .

It's the crypto space, after all. Most crypto users who understand the importance of privacy know how risky it can be to share their personal information through KYC, especially in today's world, where data can easily be exploited by hackers and even AI-powered tools. Your information is never completely safe once it gets online, and that includes your personal identity. It might not seem like a big deal at first, but attackers can use the information you provide to target you online. They can monitor your activities, track your movements and real life activities, and use that information to plan attacks without your knowledge, putting you at serious risk.

[pawanjain]

Good piece of work drafting the known types of KYC across different sites even though it still has room to improve.
I believe upfront KYC is still far better than any other types of KYC just because of the fact that we should know what we are doing.
We should know what all be required before we even start gambling on the platform and what will be the outcome of it.
There should be no surprises after winning a certain bet.

This is the best method of handling kyc, the one I always preach on the forum here. Like I always warn, any casino that allows deposits before asking for verification is not a better casino to trust. It might be a trap to forfeit player's winnings by tagging it with false allegations. We have seen many complaints in the reputation board about casino trying to cheating the system using kyc verification issues.

It's best if the platform enables every player to complete kyc, before deposit.

Yup thats correct but then only if the casino is asking for KYC at all, if it's a no KYC casino then its probably the best.
Some casinos do allow a certain limit for withdrawal without KYC and then ask for KYC verification if the withdrawal amount is above the certain limit.
I believe in such casinos it's best to be transparent about the verification requirements needed to pass the KYC so that the user doesn't have to go through unnecessary issues after their deposits.
Casinos do use tricky terms and conditions when it comes to verification methods and so simpler it is in their T&C the better it is for the user.

[DPHOR]

Preliminary KYC, in my opinion, is the most honest. You immediately understand that you'll have to go through verification and that you're not being deceived. Other verification options, in my opinion, range from deception to outright fraud. To be lenient, we'll call it marketing. Unfortunately, true classic sports betting doesn't exist in a decentralized form like Polymarket, although it does have internet address restrictions. Basically, we need to wait until progress catches up in this area, and we'll have decentralized sports betting and decentralized casinos without KYC.

To be sincere, it's important to let gamblers understand that verification is required before they would later asked for verification, to be it  looks also deceptive because they are only targeting for the gambler to win something big before you see them asking for more verification information. Rightly, they shouldn't be asked for verification of only they already had that in mind to asked, it would be better they first ask for their user to pass through the verification before they continue gambling at least this could look so transparent than asking after one might have won something big from the gambling site.

[Zlantann]

Preliminary KYC, in my opinion, is the most honest. You immediately understand that you'll have to go through verification and that you're not being deceived. Other verification options, in my opinion, range from deception to outright fraud. To be lenient, we'll call it marketing. Unfortunately, true classic sports betting doesn't exist in a decentralized form like Polymarket, although it does have internet address restrictions. Basically, we need to wait until progress catches up in this area, and we'll have decentralized sports betting and decentralized casinos without KYC.

KYC before depositing is good in my opinion. However, many people might not be comfortable with it since they might want to test the casino before further commitment. I have registered at some casinos that I later regretted using. I wouldn't want my information to be in the custody of a fraudulent platform. Explicitly writing everything users need to know in the terms of service is another aspect of honesty.

The concept of decentralized or non-KYC gambling platforms is gradually becoming a mirage due to stricter regulatory laws.

[Iranus]

Published soft KYC
A visible threshold gives players useful information, but it is not necessarily a guaranteed verification-free allowance. Risk-based checks can still override ordinary limits.

I think these soft threshold often turn into traps. Wagering limit for those soft threshold are set in such way that when casual player wager small amount, they end up losing their money leaving it with casino before ever reaching those limit. And when any big win actually occur, that’s precisely when harassment begin under the guise of risk based check or request for proof of source of fund.

If those casinos were truly serious about compliance then they would have collected ID at the time of registration. But they intentionally keep this Surprise KYC policy in place. So that players winnings can be withheld or they can be made to incur loss by getting them caught up in turnover requirement. Whatever else this may be, it certainly cannot be called fair gambling.