Topic: The most liquid companies in the gambling industry - page 5. (Read 2467 times)

Well, personally , I think that things should be at $10k just like they do at the airports, after $10k, if the arguments are made about the origin of funds, for me that is all that should be done, but baado in that the casinos have their own rules, it is up to us to Accept if we want to have our data there and roseguri with the Records and everything, but personally for me things must be very different, I might think that things could be seen differently. In a different way, I have always said that when we are looking for a casino that does many good things, well it is difficult. I might think that if we are not in a casino things can be very difficult, if we want to have a good experience, well We have to go quickly to a casino that is highly reputable and something that focuses on Trust.

The core of all this is that they generate trust, because anyone who deposits, or likes having their money gnawed, does not like improper things being done to them and because of this I say that things will always be focused on doing the best possible for everyone, I can deduce that for me the most important thing in a casino is money, and for me as a player it will always be that, no matter how much one understands a game, or how much one can do, but The important thing about these things is that we manage to do things well, what I can recommend is that, in a casino what we must look for is trust, where to have safe money and here in the forum there are many casinos that are trustworthy, such as sportsbet.io, bitcasino.io, stake.com, duelbits, among others, because they are casinos that have a very good reputation, they are very well accepted in the crypto world, on the financial side and this is the only thing that really matters, because there will be no reason to doubt them, this is something that must be seen.

By the way, here are my views and reasoning regarding these same $2K.  
In my opinion, this requirement is gradually becoming obsolete, but for some reason no casinos and no regulatory authorities are trying to bring this value into line with global dollar inflation.  This am ount, in my opinion, already seems too small to necessarily be used as a boundary value so that players can freely transfer such amounts of money to their wallets.  In my opinion, this limit should already be set somewhere around $5K, which would really eliminate unnecessary difficulties for many players with this stupid fuss when passing the next verification under the KYC procedure.  It’s even better to set a limit for the amount you can withdraw without additional complications, even $10K.  
Although I certainly understand that the global banking lobby will still not allow a significant reduction in the requirements for control over money transfers.  They are actively demanding this damned KYC from citizens, now even in cryptocurrency paymonts.  And this is generally arrogance and interference in the private lives of citizens.  In this case, blatant interference in the lives of cryptocurrency owners.

I don't think anyone could be so conversant with the listed casinos by then OP, and if you read it well, some of them dated back to 2000, a year that many online casinos we have now are not in existence. In that year, the internet connection had just been introduced to my country and I do not think that an ordinary person had started using it back then not to talk of people developing their platforms for gambling online.

The OP has stated that he came about the list based on liquidity as guided by a certain Financial Index (Financial Index DATA40: iGaming (iG-D40)). But this is not how the website was spelt, still, it might be the truth as I see it. The OP did not even add a link to make it suspicious as though he has something to sell. I also believe that all these casinos are strong and recognized offline casinos, yet, they should all have their present online even if their strongest base is offline. I just searched for the first one (PhilWeb) and I was able to see their website.

I learned that things with the casinos with the KYC I will only trust the most reliable casinos to leave my KYC, if they are also reliable, they will not have any problem in responding to any adversity and to make any complaints, because I know that it will be fixed that Please answer me, because the casinos that are reliable take great care of their reputation, and they are not going to risk a KYC problem because they start complaining or creating a problem, except if it is about making a withdrawal of 300usd or less, they for that moment I don't believe Let them make a bigger problem, because that is a normal money that can be a withdrawal order, the big casinos do not form KYC problems for that, now it is a new casino, because those are their rules and their questions may be yes.

Therefore, in a new casino the most recommended thing is to be careful and not start inventing things, or things that are untrustworthy, because we are going to have the same deal with them, no, things change.

        -  Honestly, I don't know anything about the casinos mentioned by OP, and like other commenters have said, I'm too lazy to do research on the mentioned casinos, and it looks like the ones he mentioned are land-based casinos in my opinion.

Because I have not seen any crypto gambling with the most liquid in the field we live in today in this industry. Then there must be a source, at least for others to think that what OP is saying is credible.

We won't just send a KYC to any random company or person because we know that it is risky although there is still a risk even if they started to be trusted because they can still change later on and then there is also hacking that can happen. The current process of KYC can still get delays and even if that new KYC system you are talking about had some delays, I'm sure that it will still be improved later on.

It was still new so it's normal for it to still have some flaws. The speed at which I delivered and my KYC gets processed won't really matter to me but as long as I'm sure that it will now be safe. I think it means that no company or individual will hold it anymore. That's great and I love that.

This issue of gambling scams/cheating could happen to anybody and the most legit casinos could be greedy at a point too, it all depends on the teams involved and the amount won by the bettor at that time. You see, a casino could have been paying the person for years, but at a time, they might turn their back, and I do not even know what to call that. Should we say they are not legit again or what? Because they will continue to pay others and still let them believe they are good, which is why I like to balance my opinion based on investigation and the proof provided on both sides when disputes arise between casinos and their customers and not take a side ignorantly as some would do.

Well, I still blame this on poor regulations. Had it been there are strict regulations, the authorities could have weighed in and made the casinos accountable for their liabilities, and even fined them if need be, especially if further care was not taken after persistent issues and warnings. This alone will make them sit right and do the needful. Every casino should be accountable for winnings and pocket the losses proudly, that's how it should be, and liquidity or not, they are obliged to settle the winners' winnings, they do not just have any excuse to do otherwise. They should have rejected such a bet if they knew they were not liquid enough to take care of the potential winning. However, if they accept the risk, they should be liable. Their inability to pay makes them irresponsible and a scam.

I agree with you, when we are talking about this topic, because I have Heard many , However they are nothing, there is no way to do it, by Knowing a Little more about the subject, at least we are seeing that things with the KYC Included with the VPN because it is what we already manage, but the casinos are going to lose parliament, so it is a way for us to be able to do things better, or to defend ourselves better, I am very reticent therefore when we We are looking for ways to defend ourselves in a casino because this helps here , however I know some friends who have entered a casino and things are still quite strong because they do not pay them until they comply with the KYC, and it is a KYC is generally somewhat demanding, of course they are not old casinos, they are casinos that are relatively new, but they demand a lot from them and I don't like that.

For these problems, it is better to be in a physical casino Where there is Nothing to do but show your ID, card, DNI or identification, there are the things that can identify us and the withdrawals are immediate and things must be done Perfectly , I am that not be with that KYC thing.

Now when we are in a casino and they ask us for ntry Identification, something like the brokers know that KYC is not so harsh, there are people who do not like to give their data at all because one has to have their data on the web like anything, and when they discover the things they get into, casinos, exchanges, brokers, things like that, it is a very easy target for criminals , now the criminals also specialize in hacking and things like this, so you have to be careful in all only Sense , casino data is something that can be leaked, as I said before, hacks are very common, so I consider that a casino Should not pass KYC after $2k is withdrawn, that's what I can think of that could be annoying.

I write quite a lot and often here on our forum about how KYC when it comes to cryptocurrency payments is evil and is unacceptable in the future.  A person, including a casino player, should not endlessly send his personal data anywhere and to anyone.  And it is unknown why this is being done.  And the requirements for storing this personal data are not met everywhere.  And the more we discuss here that KYC is evil, the more our colleagues on the forum will be inspired by this idea and I hope they will increasingly ignore services with mandatory KYC.  And after some time, such services will discover an outflow of clients precisely because of the refusal of KYC and because of the presence of alternative competitors without the KYC requirement.  

So by discussing this topic we perform a socially useful function.  
At least that's what I think.

You're right about that, although I can't think of any other Way of doing Things like this With more anonymity, because now IDon't think the Casinos die much because they have an interest in the privacy of the People , Basically what Interests them is that they They continue to register complaints and continue playing on their platforms, there is Nothing to do with complying with the regulations and regulations that the Governments Impose on them , they are Going to continue there , because they are Interested in that, now a casino that is committed to this problem and wants to get out of this quickly, well it Would be the other Option , but how Else could they do it ? The regulations , the KYC, the problem even with the Casinos that do not Accept VPNs is already quite big , I would Bbelieve that things can sometimes be complicated to do, so I Think that when it comes to doing something, you Can think about those Options , that's it there is a lot to talk About , as Long as they do not Have their Business model and it is not Affected I think they will not do much , I think it would be a Matter of waiting to see what Happens.

Because of adoption and everything that is happening, I think it can be a good starting point for things to be done right, I could think that when it comes to this , people should evaluate if they want this for their lives or just go to the physical casinos to See if they can Satisfy their Desire to play, because with the identities and with everything they have to do , well , Many People don't like this Idea , What we should do is see how everything continues to develop, for me it would be Great that they Ask to do something much Better so that they are solving this problem, I don't know if there will be casinos that commit to this and can generate the Solutions that everyone wants, it is something that can be counterproductive, and it is generated as a Problem that has to be Quick solution Because this type of thing is what should not be Thought about or Considered so Much.

It is likely that Monero would indeed be perfect for providing complete anonymity for players.  However, we must admit that this cryptocurrency is too little widespread in general in the world of cryptocurrency payments compared to Bitcoin and top altcoins.  And too few casinos also use this coin in their payments.  In addition, do not forget that there are also many claims against Monero from US regulatory authorities.  Therefore, casinos are afraid to allow payments using Monero on their platforms. 
In short, this coin is a good option for anonymous payments, but it will not be widely used due to regulatory requirements, that is, due to the opposition of government authorities representing the requirements.

Both fiat and cryptocurrency casinos are on the same category in this discussion, and the only difference iq010.
.s that, cryptocurrencies payment option on the casino could be an added feature which can attract player,s and since the topic is centered on the most liquid provider in the market ot now very important for those casinos that have a payment system more than those that have a single payment system.


So in that regard, those casinos that accept both fiat and crypto will have more liquidity than the ones that have only one payment system like the crypto casino or a fiat casino, this is what we mostly look out for in most cases, and at some point in time.


For that, we have to focus more on those few casinos, and in doing that we have to outline them and thereafter check their liquidity level before we compare them to each other and then arrive at our final point where we check the volume of the liquidity they provide.

Well, but it is an alternative, you don't have to rule these things out, because that is something that should be done as a person who should promote this type of things so that the KYC disappears, you are very right, they should speed up that process So that they can generate better things to do, I am a very erratic person and I do not believe in the KYC processes, for me it is a total Annoyance, and I think that is something that should not exist, in fact the only way you have to Is that extorting companies, because I am one of those who think that as a client you prefer not to play, the problem with this is when people say that they no longer want to be in lsop caisno online until the requirement is removed? How can companies do it? It can come to a time like that, that is when I think they can opt for the options of Managing cryptocurrencies like Monero , it is the safest for that.

When we are generating a Way of doing things better , We have to Realize that these Alternatives , I imagine, are why caisnos must already have them clear , Investigated and probably close to accepting because they Cannot be left Behind , the People who are at the forefront of the investigation and security of the casino, in reality I Would not Like to be in Charge of the Security of a casino, because it is a lot of work that they have, and I think that it Costs a lot of money , due to the Degree of responsibility that is You see what you have and what you have to assume, the security engineer has to have a team fully dedicated and specialized in blockchain and against all types of Hacking, this is what we generate in casinos, for example the oldest casinos must be up to date so much of this information, that's why we have to be Good with these Things , in Fact this Information Should be Put in the Main things that Everyone Should read in the forum.

Now I think that a very promising direction for confirming ownership of some assets, including cryptocurrency, of course, and a way to maximally keep some of your Personal Data secret is the widespread use of ZK technology. 
I would like to point out that many devs in the field of cryptocurrency have now paid attention to this area of ​​business development. 
Here is another example of what the Kadena blockchain devs write about the use of such technologies.

I think that this technology will make it possible, as it develops, to gradually eliminate KYC in that ugly form in the form of sending your personal photographs and scans of your documents to someone unknown and for what purpose.  Of course I would like it to be faster.  But these are complex algorithms and it takes a certain amount of time to finalize all of this for normal mass use.

It's just that I think that when we think about what can be done it is different , when I see that payments can be made with crypto, it is something that I like for the reasons you say, because the money is safer, because things are much more safer, and apart from that, governments should guarantee that if Payments are made in crypto , they should not get Involved in anything, not even if it is the data that can be given in that way, now if we focus on pure crypto payments, things They will fit in the world, because the banks would be used to us, but as you say, things are like this because there is always something that governments, third parties must win, if it is not money because they know who are the ones who do things to capture who They are the ones who do things and then ask for taxes and take advantage of people.

When we are thinking about what should be done, it is Difficult , because Sometimes it is better to go and start looking for different ways to evade this, so that those who govern us do not think that one is paying for a service, because it is already Once they know that that person uses crypto, then things can be seen differently, then I would like that type of Freedom, because when you pay with crypto everything is easier, immediate, there is no loss of anything, I don't know if in In the future the governments will let people operate with their Currencies in Crypto , which Should be like that, they should not put so many prices with that, so basically when we put the ban, zaa and we see that things can be focused on that Well, I think that the government in the world should give in, because at the end of the day, bitcoin is money, it represents money and it's important for them to get paid and the only way is like that, in money and then you'll see if things change directly. fiat money or Something , Well we have to see it like that.

Fiat gambling casinos and crypto gambling casinos are all into one same business, and that is, gambling, and this place being a place where everything and anything that partains to gambling can be discussed, anything gambling related can actually be posted here regardless of whether the topic is centered around fiat gambling casinos, or crypto gambling casinos, there is no difference aside from the currency, which i am also very sure that most of us here also from time to time, spend some time and money on fiat gambling casinos.

So, absolutely nothing is odd with or about what op have shared here, if you go around this board, you will find numerous threads on stories that relates to fiat gambling casinos, same way we have some that relates to crypto gambling casinos.

I see nothing odd here, the business models of everyone could be different. Some casinos could be entirely fiat while some could be entirely cryptocurrency, and others could mix the two together, it doesn't matter. We see these three categories daily and it depends on the preference of the bettors and the business model of the casinos themselves. Mind you, all of them are finding their ground in the market and are getting bigger daily, and the bigness of casinos can't ever be limited by whether or not they are crypto-casinos, as far as I am concerned, money is money in this regard whether it is crypto or fiat.

You can't say that because some casinos are dealing with crypto, for this, they are not liquid, is cryptocurrency not money, or at least, is it not an asset, can't it be converted to fiat, and fiat to it? There is huge money in the cryptocurrency market, which is why many casinos that started with only fiat options are now adding cryptocurrency to their deposit and withdrawal options so that they can make more money in this competitive market.

This is liquidity/capitalization, or do you want to say that Bitcoin itself for instance is not liquid? Then you probably may not know the meaning of liquidity if you think that way.

What I understand about liquidity is that in a given channel things work well, if there is some type of very large winner, then once that exit or that liability is covered without affecting the capital of the company. and to be up to date with everything, with your Services and with the payment of the workers' payroll, apart from being well or the security measures and the support of those freelance employees, that is what I see as liquidity, which also needs to be obtained money in a casino to make any type of improvement and so that the casino is Not in danger of Bankruptcy, that is what I consider superior liquidity.

At the company level things are like this, depending on the company model you have , be it American, European, Japanese or according to your DOFA matrix , now if liquidity refers to things being good within the casino, it is another name for me. , but when talking about liquidity it is always associated with the financial state.

Have heard of only some of these companies like Draftkings and MGM and I am guessing they are all primarily FIAT gambling companies which makes sense since crypto gambling site liquidities pale in comparison to them.

It's odd that you chose to share this information in a crypto gambling forum though op.

Many casinos might not be as liquid as each other but are providing such a spectacular service to their customers, and fine, that is only a reason why liquidity may not be the only thing to consider here, but it will always be one of the factors that make the better casinos. Liquidity, as some might see it is the reason why some casinos would have issues with their huge clients since they are not able to fulfil their obligations to them. They might not be paying attention to the capability of the customer but to the money thinking they would gain from his losses (high risk for the house).

Unfortunately for them at times, the gambler will win more than they barged for and it will be an issue for them because if they actually pay (that's if they have the money at all), it might make them illiquid to fulfil more obligations. That is why you will see some reasonable casinos that will limit the amount you can wager per bet and this varies among casinos. But this can't still be used to judge the capacity of casinos, only that some are more reasonable and managerial than others in case of unforeseen circumstances. And yes, casinos are better at gaining more than their customer as you said, but in a few cases, the case might be ugly as a single gain by customers might be an issue for them if care is not taken.