Topic: The most liquid companies in the gambling industry - page 4. (Read 2467 times)

I share in the view of both you, and @Slow death has very good points, and you have somewhat good points too, but still, I will dance more to the side of @Slow death because all that he said are realities of the day, except that it can't be as total as he stated it. Whether true or not, people believe better in the kind of brick-and-mortar arrangement where they would be able to see the representatives of the casinos. In some cases where it is the direct involvement of the casinos and not agents/franchisement that is involved in establishing the casinos, there is this high level of trust, especially if what they have in the building is worth a fortune to dissuade them from disappearing into thin air. This arrangement often encourages gamblers and they do not always have that power as though they are entirely online that they are untouchable.

Having a physical presence even means that you have the highest chance of registering and being regulated in the country you are in. The report against the casino could be severely sanctioned if found guilty of this arrangement. For this, the casinos would want to be sincere to a great extent and not be awkward in behaviour like most online casinos do. Also, I would like you to consider the fact that you overemphasized things here. How many physical casinos have you heard were harassed or robbed? These guys are not foolish enough to have to hold huge money with them all the time. Even some people who patronise them do transfer to them and not pay with physical cash. The same thing goes to when they want to pay huge money, they do not pay in cash. Above all, no business is without its issues, but the way we handle them matters.

However people may be less reluctant to use an on-line less known place rather than a physical location. It happens also to many people when shopping, not just for gambling - the physical location is both a marketing spot and a sign of having some real business behind. Yes, there can be criminals, but there are usually also some ways to protect the cash - not that people use cash that much.

You are absolutely right, in fact when I started to know about casinos, bitcoins and all this part, I was part of a project of a privacy policy that was going to last, because for me it seemed or maximum, because for me it was always better having that type of currency that became impossible to trace and I liked that, because from the beginning I always thought about those rights, privacy and anonymity and just what we were really looking for , because those are things that we always thought about obtaining.

But actually the Cassians are not like that, they do not provide this type of service, and there is no way to excahnge them, so in any of the Jurisdictions things will be very unfavorable for us as players, but how can it be done currently? because I know that if you as a player stand up in protest you will not do anything, it has to be a conglomerate that stands up and no longer accepts this type of things, and seeing how everything is going, I think that in the future the players will seek to become more involved anonymous, with more privacy, because there will be Freedom from everything.

Casinos will always make the difference, they are companies that will always handle a lot of money, but what happens if 70-80% of the players stop playing? Would it force casinos to not continue with KYC? because they would go bankrupt.

Whatever you and I come up with and whatever we discuss, there is always a request from some Internet users for anonymity, including, of course, gamblers.  For this reason, this market niche will never be empty.  And there will certainly be casinos that do not mock their players with these very checks and KYC when the player uses cryptocurrencies, the nature of which preserves anonymity for itself.  Of course, there may be nuances here in the form of a limit on the amount of money won in gambling that a casino client is going to transfer to his personal account.  This amount can be specified in the ToS, of course, and rightly so. 
But there is another side to the issue, which is that many new casinos with very tempting withdrawal conditions may turn out to be fraudulent from the very beginning.  And such advertising in the form of a guarantee not to require KYC is simply an option to attract additional customers who naively think that this fake casino will not deceive them.  But I think that such casinos are, first of all, an object for law enforcement agencies to search for its organizers.  And law enforcement officers simply must do their job efficiently, especially since the Internet makes it possible to track such types of fraud.  And in the case of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology in general, there is always indisputable evidence of fraud.

 But, to summarize: the demand for anonymous casinos gives rise to the supply of such services and it will have to exist.  And over time, I hope, they will be officially and legally legalized in some jurisdictions.

Well, I do know that governments are very given that the money that should be given to them does not matter how, it has to be fulfilled, personally, Primarily the casinos have to do something so that these requirements are gradually eliminated so that they give more options To win, it is not possible that to withdraw 100usd you have to do a level 1 KYC, otherwise they simply do not give you the money, and that is somewhat unfair, which is why casinos now take these into Consideration Things are going to start to make a difference, in general the casinos that are older don't have as much of a problem with these things, especially since things can happen that way, but now I have seen that casinos that are new, what they need of clients, because they put many commissions, apart from the proeñla that they put with the VPN, something that does not seem at all logical to me or bother them for that, so this type of thing is the ones that the cians I know can fight to remove and let play well to your clients.

I think that a casino is more Liquid when it allows its customers to enter and does not make their lives so impossible, that they allow them to withdraw Small Amounts and that they do not put so many "buts" on them, these types of things are What they have to focus on as a challenge. I don't see any caisnos or avanlancabde caisnos that there are because if we look at it there are many that enter, but few stay and that is something that we notice Immediately , for that reason it is that every time we are in a casino we must Check the Tos to see if a withdrawal with KYC is required immediately, even if it is with 100usd or less, which does not seem like it to me but those are their policies that seem absurd to me, if a casino focuses more on getting more customers without worrying so much about the KYC because there they will start to notice the differences, there will be many more customers there, because they respect more the fact that if you Enter, deposit and register, the registration will be done immediately and they will not have to wait So much so, and after a KYC you Wouldn't get into trouble with the Government Demanding taxes.

I also see that their casinos that are physical are very unlikely to become scams and if they do, they do not do it with the impudence of an online casino, that the online casino the disadvantage that we have as players is that it cannot be done There are other things to accept, because if they block the funds it is something shocking what they do by not allowing it to be taken out, then it is a robbery at least, on the other hand if there is a problem in a physical casino, the imdaitetnte person then goes and licks and does all the There is a fuss so that they can give you your money or something, but it is something that can be resolved at once, in a physical casino it is like that, but not in an online casino.

Online casinos are always very different in rules and in their ways of handling things, I am aware that in an online casino money is much more wasted than in a physical casino, that is the problem of trusting in casinos like this.

Well, I think that the majority of us who are here have left their KYC in the main exchange platforms, casinos and everything that has to do with these houses that manage money, in a decentralized exchange lpatfoam, the truth is I don't trust, If a theft occurs, who will respond? I consider that no one will say that it was a hack and that's not how things are, so we prefer to have a centralized excage, a centralized casino just because we know that we can count on them as it is, because they provide security, and they provide what we can and We seek to have, security can mean everything, but as you say, regulations are the things that distract us from the good thing about crypto, I have always said something, if bitcoin was created we should not detract from its function, Satoshi invented it so that We can have the financial freedom that we do not have with the money of the fiat system, neither banks nor third parties that tell us what things we should do or what permissions we should have, then this case is not fulfilled.

Now the regulations have Entered the casinos and exchanges, they wash their hands of what they say and affirm that they must comply with these demands so that they do not take away their licenses and yes, for one thing they are right , without that they cannot do anything, but how is it done? here? who loses? the casinos ? Or us, obviously us , because before in 2017 there was no mandatory KYC and then how did they do it? It was obvious that the ID was enough for things to go well, then we are people who should see those things, because before yes and now no, then they are a series of things that sometimes we as players do not fit, and that is enough for us to say no, not so much for the old casinos because they are the most reliable in the world, but in this sense things can happen that we accept our data for KYC just for the Fact of being reliable, the new Companies , the new casinos are the ones that suffer the most.

We have to consider the disadvantage of physical bulkiness, these gambling platforms are not safe in their physical appearance considering the amount of money they earned in fiat local currencies, they can be rendered under physical assault for theft, there could also be a means of physical violence in some of these casino houses, gamblers can abuse the casinos in any manner of assault including their fellow gamblers which there's none of these in any form with online gambling platforms.

Issue is part of every business but the problem is if the company is scamming the players or the players cheating the site those are the scenarios in which I believe is valid to tackle.


why you need to care? do you  become one of the involved here? or a victim or at least has problem ?


with the support giving answers and the withdrawal never been an issue? then that is correct a better business deals.

In any case, the limit amount should be several thousand dollars and more than $2 K, of course.  But when you are required to KYC when withdrawing $100, this of course resembles insanity, simply because the amounts required to process this personal information and the cost of its confidential storage are already beginning to be commensurate with such small amounts.  

As for the taxation of cryptocurrencies, it is natural that if governments decide to make taxation large, for example 30%, then naturally no normal person will perceive this positively.  And massive tax evasion to some other jurisdiction will spread everywhere.  And at the same time, jurisdictions with little taxation or no taxation at all will certainly appear somewhere in the world.  
So the government has a lot to think about before introducing brutal and huge taxation on cryptocurrency payments.

Are the Companies that can be more Liquid in the game the ones that have the most investment? Well, it is one of the most disturbing questions because we cannot ask it, is it something that can happen, and do companies that are large because they have many investors work? Really, the largest companies must have good Investors , Casinos are companies that Handle money all the time, and in large quantities, what I believe is that things can be like that , but I don't know, I'm not sure if in reality They do move things that way, because it can be owned by a single owner with enough money to cover every problem.

But in today's companies , Getting ahead with a casino is very Difficult, because it implies having a lot of money, marketing strength and a talent for money to do things with Security, this is something that is seen and noticed, that is why a Company i liquid to take that concept, it will take about 5-6 Years to see its Performance.

i understand clearly that there are companies in the gambling space that has issues with users. It is important to note that I consider whoever in paying.

I don't ever concern myself with the companies finance, even though I know that it is necessary.

I consider consistency more, cause even though they have issues with liquidity, if they keep their payouts constant, they will be getting results which will translate to success where they can win investors trust and get anonymous investors

If a casino has a lot of players, it should mean that their service is good. Maybe liquidity is not the best indicator of quality but I guess that more money means that the casino can invest in its team and therefore in its site so that they can be even better. And liquidity is important when some unforeseen problems/issues occur, after all, money solves problems, especially if the casino gets hacked, how else do you cover the losses and stay in the business? Good service brings money, and maintaining good service will bring money in the long run and raise liquidity over time.
 

I share in your view, and truly liquidity should not be the yardstick to measure the effectiveness, integrity and reputation of any company. I must also say that I've witnessed this with companies before where the small ones in the industry served me better than the biggest ones. This has to do with the people behind the running of the company and their intention in running the company, and not the money they have. This is why it can't entirely be the gauge for anyone to choose the best casinos. Nonetheless, liquidity is still important all the time, especially for those who are wagering big amounts of money. Wagering such in small casinos could be an issue if you win too big, they could be greedy and that big winning could indeed put them in trouble if they did not manage their casinos well.

Not managing it well means that due to greed, they might accept a wagering risk more than what the casino could afford to bear when the time of payment is reached. This is not news, it is happening, and even if some could afford to pay a very big winning, that might severely affect the payments of the winnings games of other gamblers which makes it risky for them.

Well, with your points, which I so much agree with as well, I think that finding a reasonable conclusion is important. And my conclusion here is that it is not all highly liquid casinos that are bad, so let us find those ones that have been in the business for so long with good track records and reputations. I believe that gamblers can't go wrong doing this.

Liquidity is important for high rollers but it's not the best indicator about the quality of service. Some casinos can have a large liquidity because they've a huge number of customers and not because they have many high rollers playing there for example. And if such companies operate from offshore locations they won't care about being professional and customer friendly but mostly of making profits from their losses.

Regulations can't affect those who use non-custodial wallets and decentralized exchange platforms and also avoid KYC-focused casino platforms because your public wallet address that shows how many Bitcoins you have doesn't have a direct link to you which means that the government or the regulators cannot know that you are the owner of that wallet so that they can tax you for it or ask you for money just for using cryptocurrencies.

However, if you use KYC-based platforms and send and receive assets to your KYCed account from your main wallet, it will be revealed that you are the one who has custody of that wallet and then they can link it to you and then tax you for what you own or spend every time.

In my understanding and believe that,  those casino that hard long term of reputation but suddenly turn bad is as a result of either attack or other for issues,  sometime only one among the team member will betray the company and then pulled an exit on everyone involved.

But many times,  most of the reputable casinos have had a long-term of good reputation without many issues and unless some few ones that hard technical challenges but are back online now,  this is what differentiates legitimacy casinos and scam casinos,  the level of consistency and good reputation iswhatdifferentiatese them from each other.
Yeah, government need to put mechanisms in place to regulate everything that goes on in the ecosystem,  this is very important to the development and safety of all,  but aside from the government,  we as individuals still have the responsibility to guide ourselves and make sure to identify and expose fake casinos,  no matter what their tactics are and how long their choose to play the game.

But also we have to promote those that are meeting up to the standards of things and taking the time to build a good reputation for themselves,  and as much as possible operating in the most consistently accurate ways and manners whereby ttthesatisfactionn comes first before anything.

I don't know if there is any data regarding how many customers physical casinos have and how many customers online casinos have, but I believe that physical casinos probably don't have the same number of customers that online casinos have, this is due to many reasons. , such as the fact that many people live far from physical casinos and are people who work, so these people who work will not have time to go to physical casinos every day, also physical casinos are most of the time frequented by people with good financial conditions, so people with low financial conditions don't go to physical casinos because they feel embarrassed, so these people with low financial conditions prefer to play in online casinos

and when we look at the great ease that online casinos can provide, then people who do not have the opportunity to go and play in physical casinos will play in online casinos, but when we compare the profits that physical casinos can obtain against the profits that casinos online can get we can see that land-based casinos can move a lot of money and even though they have high operational costs such as salaries, drinks, taxes, water, electricity, infrastructure maintenance, land-based casinos can still make a lot of profit because the people who play in physical casinos they play with many millions of dollars

because in physical casinos people know that the chances of scams are very low, they know the owners of the casino and they know very well that the owner of the physical casino will not run away with the customers' money, because he will easily be arrested, and it would be without It makes sense for a rich physical casino owner to steal little money from customers, so in my opinion what makes physical casinos the ones that make the most money is the fact that physical casinos are more reliable

Although it seems to me that this is a good figure of $5k, because Calrouno says $2k for the mere fact that it is a figure that seems quite decent, but there are casinos that if you are going to make a withdrawal of $50-100usd then they already ask you the KYC , then these things can be a little more flexible, so when you talk About how to do Things better it may be that that amount can be given to a casino without problems, but I have seen that at any time the casinos prepare for your withdrawal They have to comply with the KYC , I don't know if in the future People will not play as much or become aware of the issue of identification because as I said , Adoption before was a problem  now the problem will be that People will Not want to comply with these requirements, because if the governments come to the Conclusion that those who manipulate crypto will have to pay high Sums of money in Taxes, because no one will want to pay it , at least in my country People will look for a way to evade it , the Government If you have too much money and don't have good Policies , then they obviously Won't Help.

If people in Europe Still think that they have to give the Government money for just using crypto , then things will be very different , it may be that they accept it and say yes to their conditions, but in the case of the majority, maybe they already They won't want this, so we all know what anonymity means, the privacy that no one is aware of how much money they manipulate, because in part if those things are known it is not good, it is also dangerous, I understand that part, so it is better to avoid this type of things so that other types of problems are not triggered later just by using crypto.

From the moment the KYC began to be issued for the excahges and casino, I knew that things were not going in the right direction, however in some Cases they have been able to enter with the regulations at full speed and the people Accept them, and incredible, for That talked about the $10k requirement, but $5k is acceptable.

 ~~~~~ snip. ~~~~~~


So, while discussing the topic of limits on payouts of winnings to a gambling player, I come to the conclusion that the $2K limit without mandatory KYC is clearly outdated and already requiires an upward revision.  You have listed excellent casinos that have proven themselves well and in general there are few complaints from   players about them, even here in the topics of our forum, which are dedicated specifically to these casinos.  And our forum is perhaps one of the few where the information is quite objective and reliable.  It would be good and correct if at least one of the casinos you listed would finally increase the limit on cryptocurrency transfers without KYC to the level of, well, maybe not $10K, but for starters at least to $5K.  
I understand that this may irritate local regulators, but it would allow anonymous players who actually have quite a lot of savings and cryptocurrencies to play.  
I think that the casino itself, which decided to take such a step, would seriously benefit not only from additional income from rich players, but also from the image of the casino, which is a supporter of cryptocurrency and supports the original purplose of cryptocurrency as a method of anonymous and reliable payments.