It should be noted that in global practice there are still areas of human life in which the right to anonymity is even legally enshrined. I mean the privacy of people's Personal Health Information. This area even provides for administrative liability for the disclosure of such data. Thus, it is still worth stating that such medical data is a secret that a person can keep. And this is even guaranteed by law. But when it comes to payments in cryptocurrencies, since there are still intersections with fiat money, this right to privacy is completely ignored by governments and, on the contrary, under the guise of taxation, the requirement for personal identification using KYC is being introduced everywhere.
But I thought that KYC in the form that everyone is used to is now hopelessly outdated. For example, a photo of a person holding documents in their hands is a completely outdated method and should always be ignored if possible.
I think there is nothing much in health information and they are seem less important when we play gambling compared to the food and medical industry, or the likes, no wonder why they are not being asked anymore when we submit our KYC in a casino. Cryptos are still money but they are mostly decentralized so privacy is still there. KYC was introduced not mainly because of taxation but it's about money laundering and then preventing certain people to access the casino as they maybe underage or they are from restricted locations. But I thought that KYC in the form that everyone is used to is now hopelessly outdated. For example, a photo of a person holding documents in their hands is a completely outdated method and should always be ignored if possible.
When it comes to how KYC is being processed, I don't think a person holding a document is outdated and will ever be outdated because we have been doing this long time ago (if I'm not mistaken) and if you ignore them, it's going to be your loss and not by the platform.
As for KYC in any of its manifestations, I continue to believe that when it comes to payments in cryptocurrency, there should be no KYC at all. As for this notorious fight against money laundering, it must be said that initially no money and no cryptocurrencies are “dirty”. This money was simply used by criminals for criminal purposes, law enforcement officers should not “dirty” the money, but should catch criminals red-handed, for example, with a drug party or traffickers. But this is difficult and dangerous, and law enforcement officers themselves came up with this very “money laundering” to make their work and life easier.
And the “financial crimes” block is a separate topic for a long conversation. And as a result of such a conversation, it becomes clear that “dirty” money simply does not exist.
This topic is beginning to give rise to a lot of debate, but personally we know that this right to privacy and anonymity is biased, now things are not as before, the obgienros saw the way to be able to enter into cryptocurrency issues Through these regulations and those regulations are to remove anonymity for them to control those who carry out operations with crypto in order to be able to charge them large sums of money for taxes, that is the secret of things, then since this is already known, now they want to put the things like that, in the caisnos everything that is privacy should be defended, anonymously that is a very important thing, especially for me who attach importance to these things, I have always believed that we should be a little more irreverent with the fact of KYC in the casinos, because for everything it is KYC, in the Excahnges, it is Mandatory KYC, and that data belongs there.
The truth is that I Really liked the comparison that was made with the data of the people who are in the medical service, if something like this existed it would be Different , but this is in the Hands of governments, of bank entities, so in the hands of whoever is going to Will our data remain if a gambling site is or becomes involved in a possible hack and does the government take action? As our data Shows, the consequences are already seen in level 1A exchanges, in Binance if they have to block funds from the Eprona for 1 day, a sign, they do it if the police of some country ask them to do all the embarrassments, and we don't know if they are Just ´People in their database to add it to theirs, these things are very likely to happen, that's why we are not just People who are always going to see things from the right perspective. sense of Everything, and we Should not be so trusting, that leaving the KYC generates more security , that is pure Lies , that is to Control all those who do or transact with crypto.
True, here on the forum, some users are confident that KYC gives them some kind of security and a guarantee of saving their money. And it is also needed to combat fraud and combat money laundering. But I think that, on the contrary, disclosing complete information about a person, a casino player, in this particular case, on the contrary, reduces the safety of such a person. Information about his cryptocurrency may well attract money extortionists and criminals using blackmail. Yes, even additional measures for declaring cryptocurrency take up your precious time and often this all irritates both you and your loved ones. By the way, KYC also takes up your time. In general, now, with this level of development of digital technology, there is no difficulty in identifying a specific person if it is really necessary. And this does not require any KYC, as was the case 10 years ago.
I continue to argue that in general KYC is morally outdated and should begin to completely die out, as an unnecessary, superfluous and stupid procedure.
What he says is very true, if a casino verifies that the deposit is from a wallet they should not ask for any type of KYC, since if it is from a verified address from an exchange then those reasons can be very different, there it is not possible to approve things are good, because the origin of the funds is repeated, and the casino does not care where the person got the funds from and that is all that should be done, therefore that could be a solution that the casinos should take into consideration , because the journey is not bad.
But I don't know how the casinos can put that clause in their Rivers, that would imply that they redraft it, and that they only give exclusive use to this type of thing, but that would be a very good start, I don't know if the casinos accept something like that , because as I have always said, good things are very few.
Now about the conceptualization and seduction that they have done in favor of KYC, which is more beneficial, well, the truth is, I don't believe that lie for anything, it is obvious that that has nothing to do with it, a person in an exchange, casino, or wherever, it is located faster through an ID that is generated, not by its name, it is a sexualization of things, so I don't like that image they give either, in fact, I have seen people who define the KYC, and they are Legendary , which surprises me.
