Really that hard to believe on, considering that this is really showing off some real or live games which i do believe that it do really require up some license or permission before you could able to proceed.
You cant really have able to broadcast these things as far as i know but im aint sure on how these things to be set up but i wont really be surprised if there would really be some verifications to be asked
later on. In speaking about site design then it does really still need some improvement but not really that much but it would be nice if they would be utilize those spaces.
I'm a bit confused about that too, that how are they actually broadcasting those live games if they are not licensed. How would a casino allow a platform without a license to use their live cams to run their business? I think we need more details about these matters from the creators. And if they impose KYC in the future, that will totally make it look bad since they say they won't ask for any documents or verifications and it's a totally anonymous casino.
About the website and it's look, I don't think that the look is bad, but there are some works required in the back end and I think as OP mentioned earlier, they are already working on them, so it should be good once they do that.
Not every Live Casino Feed is broadcast by us directly, but for which we have access through our contracts for usage of them - although one of our founders does own a couple of Casino Venues, of which we are also the broadcaster giving us complete and total control over some of the live feeds - as well as security that we can not have 'all our feeds' pulled for whatever reason by a 3rd party or contract dissolution.
We have in total over 20 live feeds and will be adding them to Nakamoto Roulette one at a time.
The feed provision in no way will impact our standing on KYC (or the lack of) - the worst-case-scenario for us is that we lose some feeds through disagreement, but we can not lose all and that is OKAY with us.
Our stance on Casino Licensing is that the most flexible licenses (such as Curacao, Costa Rica, etc) offer no player-protections (if you know anything about the industry, player complaints to these bodies fall on deaf ears) -- and the more proper licenses (Malta, UK, etc) are far too restrictive - and would A) break our KYC promise and B) restrict what regions we are allowed to operate. Neither of these are a good fit for us and we disagree with the ethos of modern casino licensing so we will not do it. Many make the argument that 'players want licensing' but actually the licensing is not for the players as much as it is for the operators to gain credit card payment gateways (something that is now impossible for a casino to have without a gaming license) - it offers very little, if anything, to the player.
I think these things being discussed here are fantastic and it really solidifies our views on what and how a Casino should be run. We want to keep it simple, easy and fun. There just isn't any need for the traditional approach here.