Topic: Information of Crypto Casinos License and KYC requirements - page 10. (Read 5143 times)

A 15-17 years old is mature enough to manage their funds. They also knows how to take the risk with their funds. So, there won't be any difference between a 18 or above years old and 15 to 17 years old people betting pattern. There could be some differences in terms of risk management if any 12 or less years old start betting. Generally, no casino has any system to determine the underage gamblers.

Crashino.com KYC policy and advertising system is questionable from my view. The may suspect any user as an underage gambler. Then they will apply the identity verification rules to him. Moreover, they should block the user account if anyone breach their terms. I can't see the reason to apply the KYC requirement in that case.

---

Quoting this to give an example here. User ‘bambolina’ has created a scam accusation against ‘LTC Casino’ one month ago (See here). LTC Casino doesn't have the gambling license and KYC verification isn't required there. LTC Casino team aren't making much response in bitcointalk forum. Even they aren't cooperating with the casino guru team (who are working as a middleman to solve the complaint). And here is the last response which user ‘bambolina’ has received from casino guru team



So, a licensed casino with KYC requirement is better than a new, unlicensed and ‘no KYC' casino. If LTC Casino had the gambling license then there would have been an option to force them through the license provider to resolve the issue quickly.

From what I've read and heard, the license type doesn't even matter that much. Curacao, Costa Rica, MGA, it doesn't matter and the players only have to deal with complaints with a casino. There are a few gambling organizations just like in the UK that do stand up for the interests of customers. Licensing from Malta and Curacao is purely for the fact that these sites are allowed to offer it legally and not at all for the security and defense of the customer.

To be clear, as long as you are "successfully" losing your money, you will not be suspected of being underaged or in breach of the casinos' terms and conditions. Such statements as the above by the Crashino forum representative are an insult to logic and intelligence. I would really like to know what systems and algorithms they have in place to look at a player's gambling history and patterns and determine that they are possibly dealing with an underaged player? Are there certain bets that a 17-year old would place but an 19-year old never would because he is of legal age? Nonsense.   

Yeah, bets.io representative hasn't replied to my last question. And Crashino.com representative ignored my question too. Anyway, they will not give the clear answer if you ask them about it. Some other forum members has also asked the OP of Crashino.com about their KYC policy but they didn't give the appropriate answer to anyone. They said

Based on this statement, they may block the funds/withdrawal of their users by addressing that the user is underage or by saying that the user has breached their terms. And KYC will be asked in that case. So, advertising with ‘no KYC’ is really misleading.

Bets.io's casino admin completely ignored your last questions. I wouldn't attach too much importance to what he said because the casino's KYC states that they can and will ask for KYC if needed. I am certain that would happen in case of significant wins or if they believe a player is gambling from a location that is banned. If it was my thread, I would mention that players could be asked to go through KYC when they play at Bets.io.

They are claiming that KYC is needed to determine whether a player is underaged. That makes no sense. There is no way to determine that a player is underaged based on the casino games he plays, wagers, wins/losses. Since you were ignored, I would ask the question again. It could have been an honest mistake or maybe their casino rep didn't like your question. If they don't respond a second time, cross them off. That's what I would do. 

Update: Added the details of BK8 and BTC365 in the list.

@Pmalek & @FatFork, I need some suggestions from both of you. I was checking two casinos, they are Bets.io and Crashino.com. Both of them are advertising in the forum by adding “No KYC” in their title. While both casino reserves the right to ask for identity verification based on the rules of their terms.

Bets.io has gambling license. Identity verification requirement is mentioned in their terms. I asked their forum representative about this, but I'm not satisfied with their answer. (See here)
Crashino.com doesn't have gambling license. But KYC verification requirement is also mentioned in their terms. I have asked to their representative as well, but they have ignored my question. (See here)

I was planning to add both of them in the list, but I'm confused for their mixed and misleading information. What should I do?

Casinos ask for KYC for a reason, and if they don't, exercise caution when you deal with them. A casino that does not require KYC will have no license to speak of and no reason to pay you out if you win big unless they are a very long-standing, well-known and reputable casino operator. Even then, it can be a gamble. Of course there are exceptions, but in general you shouldn't be holding your fate in the hands of a casino if it means a portion of your money is gone. Instead, remember what casinos are really there for. This is not a charity. A cheap no-KYC casino is most likely a scam. Their main mission is to grab your money and run.

The recent events with the freezing of the reserves of the central bank of Russia, i.e., in fact, the theft of these colossal funds on the instructions, I think the American authorities and financiers, shows how bad everything is in terms of financial guarantees and the preservation of private property rights.  And this is done at the state level!

 What can we say about some kind of guarantees from the availability of licenses and KYC. 
If it goes on like this, then the world will generally slide into barter in kind, as in the Middle Ages. 
And I think it’s certainly better to gamble without any KYC there.  I think most players will agree with me.  Because all these guarantees, as experience and the real development of events show, are all fiction and deceit.

These mandatory KYC rules will not be stopped especially from a casino that has obtained its license from a regulator. You know, when a casino is regulated, the basic requirement is KYC, and you have to comply if you want to play. Actually, you can choose to gamble on casinos that do not require KYC, but what if they are unlicensed? would you choose comfort over security?

But sadly, when it comes to governments, they can easily pressure crypto-based casinos to follow their rules and we have seen this happen on many sites. And this will later turn the casino into full anonymity and now it looks like web 3.0 has started to become a trend because gamblers can use their wallets directly without the need to register with a gambling site. It is also a form of anonymity so that the identity of the gamblers is not revealed because they are connected through their wallet and they can create the wallet whenever they want.

When this becomes a trend, the government will not be able to use KYC in full because casino sites also do not hold basic data from gamblers. Casino sites only know the address of the gambler's wallet without knowing who the gambler is. At that time, licensing only remained a formality for a casino.

Good that we still have a lot of good gambling sites which do not require us to do the KYC and KYC requirements in gambling are very limited.
Those gambling sites that make the KYC mandatory face a considerable decrease in their players playing at their sites because most of the gamblers prefer to remain anonymous. When there are so many options available where we can play gambling without KYC, then it's better we avoid the KYC casinos so they stop these KYC mandatory rules.

I also think that when it comes to such old and trusted casinos as freebitco.in, having a license is just a formality.  Moreover, the presence of all kinds of licenses cannot be a 100% guarantee in the activities of any casino. 

Well, KYC is a nasty function thought out by the Americans to control everything and everyone, it's just a mockery of the very essence of the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, which has been the main and undeniable advantage of this alternative financial system since their very foundation by Satoshi Nakamoto.  By the way, the identity of Satoshi, which has not been unraveled, is another confirmation of the importance of anonymity.

Operating without a gambling license also has its advantages. You don't have a license, so you don't have an umbrella body that has to act as a supervisor. Nobody obliges a casino to perform a KYC. Many players do not feel like a KYC, and an unlicensed casino is easy. As a player you don't have a commission that you can rely on, which is a big disadvantage. But the KYC is also something that has increased significantly in recent years. I have the impression that things used to be much easier and that casinos were not under strict supervision, which is the case now. And then the type of license doesn't even matter. Speaking of the KYC and licensing, the MGA is also a big joke. I know of stories of people having issues with sites, and all the MGA does is check to see if a casino follows the terms and conditions. No matter what it says, the MGA says it's not their responsibility and they are solely responsible for enforcing the site's rules.

Having that sign of legitimacy in the form of a license is a benefit or an advantage because people won't doubt too much and they will play on that site. Every new site have that because that is one of their edge for them to get noticed by the player while most old gambling site don't have a license yet because I think regulation back on time are not heavy as today and even without a license, lots of people are still going to trust them due to their age.

One of the reason that I can think of on why freebitco doesn't have a license is because it was not a real gambling site but it is more on a faucet site where you can get free bitcoins. This is where the starters headed at and it will be a hassle if they are required to do a KYC only for this.

Gambling licenses don't appear to offer much benefits other than to ensure that behind every platform is a legitimate company that has all the necessary legal rights and responsibilities.

Freebitco.in is in a completely different ballpark. They have a long history and reputation in the community, so the license does not mean anything in their case, unlike many new gambling platforms that have sprung up without being vetted by the Bitcoin community.

One of the oldest and most popular Crypto currency casinos, namely Freebitco.in are not licensed and they also do not require KYC details. What does that tell you about the "needs" of the "clients" in this industry?

How effective are the license operators in any way? When Stake.com offered a Lottery that were not allowed under their license, their license was suspended for a review... Stake then just renamed the Lottery to a Giveaway and their license was reinstated.  

It is nice to know that some regulation are in place, but what teeth do they have... other than cancelling or suspending the license?  

Update: Removed * mark from Betcoin.AG ‘License (Register)’ part as the representative of the casino has confirmed (through pm) that the license validator is available at the site now. I have checked it as well. Both PlayBetr and Betcoin casino operating under the same license. It shouldn't create any problem as we have seen few other casino which are operating under the same license operator.
Added the details of Bitgame in the original post. And I will update the details of BK8 casino soon.

It may be a marketing strategy. There are some good benefits for the companies to have a number of casinos registered and it can be perfectly legitimate to be honest. Each of them may address a different public segment of age or habits or a different geographic area, country, etc... There is a less "noble" purpose to own a number of companies that is to saturate the market and avoid the competition entering the business. By default, nothing obviously wrong here.

Same as in any other industry there is a supply chain in gambling. It consists of multiple layers, such as but not limited to: regulators, games and odds providers (separate industry itself and can be quite a layered cake), platform providers, payments providers, CRM systems, mailing, security, DDOS protection, technology, analytics and so on.

Same as other industries, the gambling industry is an ecosystem, with many industrial players competing for various niches. And same as in any other industry, every investor chooses how far to go from the perspective of vertical integration. There is a very wide choice on what operators can do in-house vs outsourcing.


We partially rely on a professional gambling technology provider, who also happens to offer a licensing solution. The provider is Softswiss (https://www.softswiss.com/), quite reputable and very reliable, utilizing best practices when it comes to IT security as well overall stability.

This path has upsides and downsides, in our particular case allowing us to focus on players and marketing and reduce the burden of massive back-end technology maintenance that a typical owner of technology has to live with. The same goes for licensing, we rely on Softswiss here.

We have been contemplating applying for our own license lately exactly for the reason that a natural question pops up why so many casinos and just one license. There is a good explanation, but it does pop up and we feel that it will continue to be so in the future. But we are in the middle of evaluating the pros and cons.

It depends on each particular gambling site and I think that even if you find some information about this case in the T&Cs, everything is more or less flexible and depends on each particular case. However, as far as I know, most online casinos use this opportunity to prevent your withdrawals if you are unable to confirm your identity.