I think that absolutely everyone knows that bitcoin and cryptocurrencies should not be supervised by governments, banks, or control organizations, because this is what fiat money is for, bank records, the very large money movements that exist are not enough. ?
Bitcoin is unique and it should not be supervised by those government authorities but altcoins are different, not unique and they must be supervised.
Altcoins are very centralized and scammers can use altcoins to scam investors. They did many scam altcoin projects and will continue to make more new scam altcoins. Without supervision from government and their agencies, scammers will have a paradise for their scam activities which is not good at all.
I support more regulations from governments but will new and stricter laws, legislation, not arbitrarily regulate it like Gary Gensler and SEC. are doing.
It is so, what I base it on is the reality for which bitcoin was invented, it was not invented to be subject to regulations of any kind, neither by governments, nor by banks, nor by third parties, it is free, it should not be noticed by anyone, with respect to the altcois, yes, it may be that there are many scam projects, even so they are cryptocurrencies that at one point there should not even be regulations for those either, what a psa is that the governments seeing that they do it have no participation nor do they put money from there as evidence to be able to regulate, control, among other things, and I will never support the initiatives that governments have to regulate cryptocurrencies.
Of course, I am saying this solely based on Bitcoin, the cryptocurrencies that are derived from it already have another meaning, some are in favor of many things, control, privacy, there is already a wide variety of them, but as for Bitcoin, it is what interests me. I mean.
KYC is usually enforced in order to comply with regulations and to avoid troubles with regulatory entities. But it's also a mean to protect the casino or any other service provider from cheaters and abusers. By knowing the identity of the customer, the service provider knows whom they are dealing with and take the appropriate action.
Regulations and strict rules aren't always a bad thing. It serves to protect the casino but also the customer.
For the casino yes but for the customer? In what way it can protect them? I can only see a risk of sending KYC online. What if the platform turned to be a scam later on? If not, they can still get hacked and the KYC can be stolen and misused by the criminals. Only the owner of those ID's are going to suffer but there might be a way to tell that they are not guilty once someone accused them unexpectedly.
There is no problem asking a KYC outside cryptos but it seems not right if they ask inside when the aim of cryptos is decentralization. Regulators shouldn't worry because the people who deals on it already know the risk and they are responsible for it.
Yes, that is the point that I say, if there is a great probability that the site could suffer a hack, all that data who knows what hands it will go to, and they will have confidential information about everything, even the players who are whales, So this is the main reason why KYC is dangerous and this also supports what I said about Bitcoin, that KYC should never be requested.
I understand that casinos have to comply with their licenses and requirements, but I have rarely seen casinos that think about their clients, because as you say, the casino protects itself, but the client remains unguarded, and since it is a crypto casino, well Based on crypto such a thing as KYC should not exist, what governments care about, what third parties care about, we are not interested in them, well if they are interested in our money, nothing else.
