Topic: Street Selfie? Why all these crazy requirements in the name of KYC verification? (Read 1186 times)

Ah. Sorry about that. For some reason I read your in a completely different way. You are totally right. It doesn't look fair is a nice way of putting it. It's greed, and it runs in the blood of all casinos though no matter how pretty they make their website look or how friendly their staff are.

Unfortunately the reject all option doesn't reject all cookies at all sites. There are usually mandatory ones that you have to accept and which you can't reject even if the site offers you the reject all option. The reject all is for the optional cookies. Maybe tools like the Cookie-Editor can help to clear even the mandatory ones with the click of a button after you are done with a particular website. Manual deletion from the settings menu works as well, but both options first include accepting some and then deleting them afterwards.

Advanced users might get rid of the cookies popup using inspect element, but popular sites have protection in place against that. It works sometimes. 

True. I usually waste some time skimming through the terms when opening a bank account. But from what I've seen, most people really don't.

So true:

I don't like it either. But if you are going to sign up to somewhere that involves you sending them large amount of money, then you should really be taking the time to read what you are signing up to. You can quite easily focus in on only the parts which are important to you, as I did when I quoted from their terms above. It took me all of 2 minutes to find those relevant snippets.

And if you don't read them at all, then you can't really get annoyed when the company in question behaves in the exact way they said they were going to, regardless of how scummy said behavior is. If you aren't going to read the terms, then you should work on the assumption that they give the company free reign to do anything they like with your money or your data. Because when it comes to centralized crypto entities, that is more often than not the case.

I know that's how it works now, that's why I said it should be illegal. Casinos won't act against their financial interests until forced by regulators, and the entire concept of only asking for KYC on withdrawal doesn't look fair.

You got me curious since you specifically said 10 pages. Using tool to calculate total page[1] with setting Verdana, 12pt and 1.5 spacing i got following result on 3 different service,

• Coinbase user agreement[2] has 79.8 pages.
• Preinstalled Windows 11 License terms[3] has 16.9 pages.
• Trust wallet ToS[4] has 17.9 pages

So it looks like 10 pages on lower side of length ToS.


That's true. Although for cookies, there's option to choose "X", "Reject all", "Accept minimum" or similar lines which i automatically choose these days.


They offer great summarisation. But unfortunately they don't show last time when ToS of a website changed and last time they make an update, so i don't know how up to date is their summarisation. Although it's just small concern for me.

---

[1] https://howtowrite.customwritings.com/pages-calculation/
[2] https://www.coinbase.com/legal/user_agreement/united_states
[3] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/UseTerms/OEM/Windows/11/UseTerms_OEM_Windows_11_English.htm
[4] https://trustwallet.com/terms-of-services

I am quite sure that's not how it works. A lot of casinos (as far as I have read) will only spring it on you when you try to withdraw. As far as I am aware, exchanges do the same thing. This way, you lose gambling/leverage trading, then you will have to deposit again. You will continue to do so until one day you withdraw, and that day is when business will end. Until then, they will continue to take your money for as long as you give it to them.

True. The only thing I can think of is some kind of FAQs that answers the most important question if a user doesn't have the time to read all of the ToS. Based on my experience, most faqs are only related to the operational side of the platform, never to the sensitive information that the user needs to know.

Personally, I only read the full ToS pages when I need to translate them for a project. After reading some of them, I can vaguely guess what this or that part means if I see it in other projects' ToS so it helps me if I want to skim it. Not everyone can do or have the time to do it though.

Personally, I find the notion of having to constantly agree to lengthy terms and conditions and cookie notifications quite frustrating. It seems that every website or app is like, "Hey, check out these 10 pages of fine print before you use us." Who's got the time for that? The truth is, most people don't have the patience to read through all of these agreements, and as a result, they often click "accept" without truly understanding what they are agreeing to. This is a concerning issue as it raises questions about privacy, data protection, and informed consent. In my opinion, there needs to be a better solution that balances the need for legal protection with the rights and interests of the user.

I honestly never met anyone who fully read any of those "infinite" T&S pages. I vaguely remember a case where a person actually read them in their entirety and ended up winning $1000[1]:
A useful tool that I use more often than not is Terms of Service Didn't Read[2][3] - only website, I don't have their extension installed - whose mission is to simply resume all those endless terms into simple bullet points that resume what will you, in fact, accept to (or refuse). They are funded[4] by non-profits organizations and by individuals and their software is released free of charge. Sadly cloudbet isn't listed on there (mostly due to the size of it vs other services such as AWS, DuckDuckGo, Twitch, ...).

---

[1]https://www.pcmatic.com/blog/it-pays-to-read-license-agreements-7-years-later/
[2]https://tosdr.org/
[3]https://github.com/tosdr
[4]https://thanks.tosdr.org/

Technically, that's probably true. But morally, I don't like it. If I'd have to read through everything I have to agree to on a daily basis, I don't have time left for anything else. Cookie messages alone can be many pages, terms and conditions are easily tens or even hundreds of pages. Most people just click "accept" without even reading them, and I can't really blame them.

Previous discussions about such issues should be unnecessary. All of this behavior is clearly laid out in their various terms and policy documents. If you (again, not you personally) don't bother to read them, and just sign up and throw your money at the site, then you really can't complain when the sites does exactly what they said they were going to do and hold your money hostage. It's the exact same pattern we saw with the likes of Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, etc. Everyone who lost money is super angry that these sites were handing out their coins in risky loans with no collateral and no guarantees of funds being paid back, while the entire time their Terms of Use quite clearly said that this is exactly what they were doing.

Here are just two relevant quotes, but the entire documents I've quoted here are just page after page of saying how they will collect any data they like about you and then do whatever they want to with it:


So if you are going to sign up under these terms, then there is no point getting angry when they are enforced. It's your fault and your fault alone for not reading them before you deposited.

I have never done KYC on a crypto casino, so I am not familiar with the procedure. There are some fiat sportsbooks that I have used (and still use occasionally) where my identify is verified. No one ever questioned me about the source of my founds. They just want to know I am who I say I am and live at the address I registered with.

All this address selfie bullshit aside, I don't think that normal crypto casinos that require KYC ask such questions either. They just want to know you are of legal age, you don't gamble from a restricted location, and that you haven't broken any of their terms.

I'm pretty sure the casinos don't want that, unless regulation forces them.

They want your money, but they don't want to pay you. It's basically an additional house edge.
If you (not you personally, it's a figure of speech) lose $100k in stolen money, it becomes legal profit for the casino. If you do that at 20 different casinos and win $1.5M at one of them, it becomes legal profit for you. If all 20 casinos would ask you to go through KYC and prove where you got the funds before you could deposit, none of them would have earned $100k from you. That gives them a huge incentive to not ask questions during deposit.

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second one. It's, of course, unfortunate if this happened to you all of a sudden and you want your money back. But this issue with Cloudbet has been discussed for half a year now. I am sure that many gamblers are still playing there for whatever reasons and are just hoping it won't happen to them instead of taking their business elsewhere. So, the player shouldn't be blamed for having this happen to them out of the blue. They are to blame if they know it can happen but do nothing about it. Leave and never return!

Some casinos/sportsbooks operate like that. KYC verification the moment you create your account. At least that way you know where you stand. The problem is, crypto gamblers don't want that. They would rather gamble without KYC as well, and only do it if absolutely necessary. Take a look at the results of the poll or some of the comments in Do You Want KYC at Crypto Casinos During Registration? Because they don't mind, that's what they get. You are welcome to deposit and lose, but if you win and you win often, then we will investigate you.

I am sure if also depends on the regulator and license provider. I doubt that online/crypto casinos licensed by the UK Gambling Commission operate in the grey areas like the Curacao ones. I think The Gambling Commission has mandatory KYC on sign-up.

It should be illegal to ask for kyc only when withdrawing. It should be asked before you deposit, so they can't trick you and it makes actual money laundering though online casinos much harder.

No self-respect? If someone is holding a significant amount of money from you, then you are going to do what they say to get it. If the requirement was there without holding the money, no one would do it. Unless of course they are degenerate gamblers, then yes they have no self-respect.

What new excuse did they give after declining what you submitted. I am just being curious about how far they want to go.

My local bank doesn't even know what kind of business I do, what my exact source of income is, where my current exact location is and yep, I opened the account online and here we have some anonymous chaps asking for a street selfie? Give me a break, cloudbet 

This. 1000 times this.

I've spoken about this at length when people bend over backwards to send every last shred of information about themselves and a copy of every single document under the sun to some shady exchange just so they can buy and sell bitcoin. Why? There are literally hundreds of other exchanges out there you could use instead. Or when an exchange starts enforcing "taint" and other such nonsense, and people start worrying about where their coins have come from and who they have done business, when they could just choose a better exchange which doesn't subscribe to the provably falsehood of "taint".

A video selfie holding today's newspaper and piece of paper with your name and signature and your passport in front of a street sign near your house? That's all fine, apparently!? How much is finally going to be too much for people? A copy of your latest medical report? The passwords to your social media profiles? Absolute insanity.

No self-respect, that's why. Give the players big bonuses, free spins, the occasional free bet, slightly bigger odds than the competition and they will do anything you want. Many gamblers don't play where it's safer and better for them, but where there are bigger promises and the illusion of taking home 5-10 BTC in bonus money. If Cloudbet noticed a significant drop in activity following this idiotic street-sign requirement, they would have gotten rid of it in record time.