Of course, no website is completely immune from hacking, am only disappointed that you guys are taking this as an excuse instead of looking elsewhere to the benefits of KYC.
If a website is new, my dear, you are talking 50/50 chance with them if they are without KYC. Because without it, it means they are not regulated. But you have higher rest of mind if they are truly regulated.
Excuse? Nonsense. 50/50 chance without KYC? More nonsense. I already specifically mentioned in my previous post that I have been gambling at several popular sites without providing KYC at any stage.
Also, no KYC requirement and features such as great offers, great customer support etc are what truly make crypto gambling sites popular. Think!
True, KYC requirement doesn't guaranteed any form of regulation of any online casinos, there is no way a gambling platform will prove to users that they are regulated, many scam projects have stolen users KYC information and they don't know it, these criminals have other use for peoples identity.
At first, I always thought that KYC is the answer, the answer to fraud and other bullshits from platforms, later I found out that KYC requirement could be an idea to scare some people off after they win some money or they have other use for the information they acquired from people. Kyc can disguise himself in many ways, but obviously this came from a requirement of governments or government entities and it is something that he does not like to walk, however we as players sometimes understand that not even Casinio himself is to blame for things how the kyc is implemented, the licenses, the permits, everything requires documentation, and sometimes the jkyc disguises it by saying that it is a security measure so that at the time of a possible hack they can recover the person's funds, that is something that I don't conceive, because in crypto there should never be kyc, that goes against the natural laws of crypto.
This a typical example of why I believe people don't know the reason for KYC as I've read many kicking against it simply because they lie it could protect them from hacking. Who is saying KYC will protect anyone from hacking? it's your cyber security that will do that for you. What KYC does is to be sure that the person holding the account is what he says he is. And this is in turn creating a better society for us to the advantage of the gambler, the company and the government for security and accountability.
Only insensitive and selfish people that don't mean well for the society would kick against KYC.
Of course, no website is completely immune from hacking, am only disappointed that you guys are taking this as an excuse instead of looking elsewhere to the benefits of KYC.
If a website is new, my dear, you are talking 50/50 chance with them if they are without KYC. Because without it, it means they are not regulated. But you have higher rest of mind if they are truly regulated.
Excuse? Nonsense. 50/50 chance without KYC? More nonsense. I already specifically mentioned in my previous post that I have been gambling at several popular sites without providing KYC at any stage.
Also, no KYC requirement and features such as great offers, great customer support etc are what truly make crypto gambling sites popular. Think!
True, KYC requirement doesn't guaranteed any form of regulation of any online casinos, there is no way a gambling platform will prove to users that they are regulated, many scam projects have stolen users KYC information and they don't know it, these criminals have other use for peoples identity.
At first, I always thought that KYC is the answer, the answer to fraud and other bullshits from platforms, later I found out that KYC requirement could be an idea to scare some people off after they win some money or they have other use for the information they acquired from people. Kyc can disguise himself in many ways, but obviously this came from a requirement of governments or government entities and it is something that he does not like to walk, however we as players sometimes understand that not even Casinio himself is to blame for things how the kyc is implemented, the licenses, the permits, everything requires documentation, and sometimes the jkyc disguises it by saying that it is a security measure so that at the time of a possible hack they can recover the person's funds, that is something that I don't conceive, because in crypto there should never be kyc, that goes against the natural laws of crypto.
KYC in crypto casinos is still the pros and cons to date. Indeed, the natural law of crypto is anonymous or it is not clear who owns it, but if I look at some of the cases that have occurred, I consider all of these problems.
indeed casinos shouldn't require KYC for their customers considering crypto is so anonymous. but if the casino doesn't ask for KYC, how can the casino detect customers using money laundering?
on the other hand licensed casinos already have agreements with licensing companies to require KYC from every customer.
It's true that the issue has pros and cons, but you got it wrong by saying casinos must not ask for KYC due to the anonymity of crypto. First, it's not all cryptos transactions that are anonymous, and casinos are companies, not crypto itself, they are only using the crypto as a payment system.
In a sane world, all their activities must be accounted for as a company to avoid illicit flows, so that argument is invalid. Crypto will always act as online money, but the activities of those using it as a payment system for deposit and withdrawal should be regulated.
