OP, Maybe the title is a bit excessive. They introduced some restrictions for certain countries and announced a possible request for KYC information in case they suspect an attempt to circumvent this rule. So for a large number of users, it is still a no-KYC casino.
No, Freebitco is no longer a no-KYC casino. They have registered a gambling license, and the KYC verification requirement is the part of the license regulation. Based on the
reply of TheQuin, the chance is almost zero to ask the user to complete the identity verification. But you can't deny the possibility while it has been added in the terms.
The BV is actually in Costa Rica rather than Curacao so there's no licencing issue. We actually moved the company there a while ago and wetsuit had discussed with me the possibility of adding new ToS at the time.
Quoting this again. AFAIK, Both BV and NV is under Curacao. Can you ask 'wetsuit' to know about the registered address of FBC BV company? I'm still confused whether FBC BV is under Curacao or Costa Rica. The company address will clear the doubts.
The company is:
Name: FB Coins Limited
Registration number: 3-102-854043
Date of Registration: 13 June 2022
Address: Land and Business Attorneys, Building Plaza Murano, Eighth Floor, Office number 82, San Jose, Costa Roca
I don't know if the Curacao company is related to us but if it is then it's one of the other businesses wetsuit owns and nothing to do with the freebitco.in
To be pedantic here your statements are incorrect.
1 "Freebitco is no longer a no-KYC casino".
By the definition you are using we never were. By the real definition of being required to provide ID to use the service we are not.
2 "and the KYC verification requirement is the part of the license regulation"
There is no gaming license so there are no regulatory requirements. What I have been describing are simply our obligations not to do anything illegal.
This is new to me, and by the looks of it is recent. We will have to see if freebitco.in continues to operate as before despite this new wording, and as TheQuin defends or we start to have complaints in the forum. Also if this is the beginning of a series of changes.
The fact is that there are still casinos that do not ask for KYC under any circumstances and freebitco.in is no longer one of them.
In fairness to TheQuin, indeed "under any circumstances" might simply be an exaggeration. They're hollow words. If worst comes to worst, they might not hold water.
Anyway, to TheQuin, since you're not pushed by any agency to include KYC in your ToS or required by Costa Rica to implement it, why did you include it anyway? Is it not possible to draft a new and more professional ToS without including KYC?
I think this is a result of a common misunderstanding here on the forum of what a KYC site is. A KYC site requires you to verify your identity either at signup or when you want to deposit, gamble or trade.
All sites are subject to the laws of wherever they are based. They would have to comply with any court order requiring them to identify a customer (eg. suspected money laundering, handling stolen funds etc.). That's the case for all sites without any mention of it in their ToS. Is it professional to omit it?
In summary, using the definition that we are now a KYC site means that a non-KYC site is willing to violate the laws they are subject to.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is correct. And this is normally missed by many of us.
However-- I'm not a legal expert, by the way-- the difference is that those gambling sites that clearly specified in their ToS that they reserve the right to demand KYC from users whenever they deem necessary can handily demand for it. On the other hand, those that claim to be non-KYC gambling sites can't do it just like that. Until and unless there's a court order or perhaps an official order coming from a relevant agency requiring a particular user to provide his/her personal details, the site can't just lock an account or freeze funds on a whim.
I'm not going to comment on what other sites have written in their ToS but our ToS states:
5.6. You authorize us to use any means we deem necessary to verify your identity and solvency with any third-party information provider.
I don't read that as we can demand ID information from you.
But that wasn't really the point I'm making. I think you're all reading too much importance on what is or isn't written in the ToS. What any site can do (or can be forced to do) is defined by the laws they operate under completely regardless of what the ToS says. A site can't just write a line in their ToS that justifies them to "just lock an account or freeze funds on a whim" if that is effectively theft and illegal. It would be struck down as an unfair contract.
If you think anything about freebitco.in changed when we updated the ToS you are wrong.