Topic: What would be an ideal KYC solution? - page 10. (Read 4987 times)

we have different ways and different idea but for me it's better to have or to do a KYC if you are a big gamblers it because you have the assurance that your money will safe and have a big chance to withdraw it but the KYC must be simple and that that strict but like me as a small gambler then it's okay to not or to don't asked about kyc as it was a small amount from my pocket and have a small money in withdrawal.

This was a fun read, thanks all for the replies. I'm trying to figure out how to move this in to the discussion sub, will do it soon.


I was actually enjoying their story and the whole first page of that thread, but then after I start looking at the most recent replies I saw that they are out of business. I'm not sure how a system like that can function, especially if it's run by a smaller team. But nevertheless, it seemed like an interesting idea.


You personally aren't the problem, it's the abusers. The matrix, the KYC matrix isn't triggered on every little thing that happens within the casino. Some companies like Betsson have a 1000+ variable matrix that finds out abusers, some of them trigger on smaller steps, other on larger, it really depends on the users track record with the casino.


 

KYC/AML procedures in crypto casinos are a necessary evil, as they prevent fraudulent activity by scam artists and money launderers. However, many people who play at crypto casinos do not like having to comply with KYC/AML rules because they don't trust online casinos with their personal information and worry about the security of their data. This is completely understandable. People have reservations about divulging information about themselves to online services. And even fewer people trust the security of their data with an online casino. Some people say that KYC is essential for preventing fraud and crime in the space, but that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of examples where institutions have been breached by hackers and the information leaked, and there are also many cases where the data has been used for malicious purposes.

KYC in Cryptocurrency casinos is something that you cannot avoid because like you said because of the license requirement I'm OK with doing KYC this is an industry practice its a way to safeguard the casino and its users as well, an ideal KYC solution should be a much higher withdrawal threshold so that only whales and those high stakes bettors  and those suspect for money laundering will be asked KYC protecting the majority of gamblers who are small players, of course, gamblers should prefer to be KYCed by reputable casinos

Whether you like it or not, we will be asked to do KYC, regardless of the limit we crossed, because every casino can change the limit anytime.
Maybe casinos can now set a $10k or even more, but if the government asks them to lower the limit, the casinos have to comply.
While crypto users like casinos that don't implement KYC, they should also be aware that one day KYC may become a necessity in casinos.
KYC that doesn't use too many details won't be a problem for users.

  - This is just from my observation, I noticed that other casinos require KYC but they look for a lot besides personal documents, others do not require KYC but when the amount of money released on their gambling platform suddenly asks for KYC, and even though it has been given, they still ask for a video call to confirm if they are the ones on the ID for validation, besides saying that the database record was suddenly erased, are such scenarios not allowed to release the big winnings of a gambler.

Can't just a simple KYC like providing a valid ID or passport would be enough as if there is no hassle for a gambler?

Users are okay with the KYC because with the centralized system and government it is impossible to run a casino with no KYC when the regulators wants them to do. So the solution is just keeping it simple not really deep sensitive information shouldn't be collected until they reach certain wagering and withdrawing limits so a normal user can pass through the hurdles with ease.

"Balance" is looking for a solution that's impossible with the current system of centralized services, using a decentralized cryptocurrency. You will always be entrusting your coins into the custody of another entity. There will never be a perfect balance in such a system, merely trade-offs, and often times it will be more advantageous the casino because they hold your money.

I believe the only solution that would be advantageous for the user was something like DirectBet's system. No accounts needed, no deposits and withdrawals necessary, everything done through blockchain, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/directbet-live-sportsbook-racebook-now-accepting-ether-393147

I will refrain of speaking of which when you don't have enough data or statistics about this. I know some users shared their experience here the same as you described, so matic they are labeled as money launderer?

If "real gamblers" will used "most" of its deposits, then how about those who used the partial, quarter of their deposits? Also those who used all of their deposits. What should be they called?

The point is why labeling someone as real or not real gambler or what ever you call it just because they don't want to bet their whole deposits, quarter of it or all of it. There is no requirement of being a gambler soon as you gamble, you are a gambler, also for a money launderer. Any launderer can do both or any options mentioned, as long the money were from any crime then send it to gambling sites, its already laundering, whatever he does to that money.

I will echo the sentiments of most of our posters here, it can't be prevented in this era. We have moved to a point that everything, including crypto base online casinos are going to ask for KYC. That what the world we live in right now, our identity will have to be known to them specially if we are winning huge amount of money.

So before they are going to pay, they want to record everything first, as government has also mandated that before they will be given their license to operate, they will have to pass KYC first. That's how it is and so there is no solution but to follow what they requested and submit ourselves to KYC procedures.

the problem is not in KYC itself, the problem is how this law is unfair and in a way puts people at risk, for example if the law said the following: every online casino will be obliged to put who owns the casino and also the real contacts about the casino such as: phone number, email, social networks so that people would already know that the owner of the casino is person X, there is his phone number, address where he lives, his social networks and casino phone number and casino social networks and email address and with that anyone would feel comfortable doing KYC in that casino

let's be honest, who is happy to give away documents on an anonymous site? no physical address why can't the customer be anonymous but the owner of the casino can be anonymous? How is this and combating money laundering? Could it be that money laundering cannot be fought if a person creates a casino? casino owner can't launder money? this KYC law is unfair and meaningless in my opinion


this is also another problem, you don't know who owns the casino. you don't know if they are undercover criminals or not, and you can earn millions and the casino owners themselves can go steal from you, they know your identity, or they can sell your identity to some criminal and that criminal goes there to steal from you, that KYC issue is very poorly done in my opinion

Come to think of it, online casinos should be the last to ask users for KYC verification, imagine winning billions of dollars and the platform has your national identity card or NIN number, you are not that safe if we start talking about the danger present here.

You're not comfortable being asked to provide KYC on a casino? choose reputable zero KYC casino like Freebitco, don't use brand new created zero KYC casino since it's high risk of the casino isn't trustworthy.

It doesn't make sense if you want to play on mandatory KYC casino but doesn't want to provide KYC if they want to ask you because they feel suspicious on your account. KYC is really needed for licensed casino that run many promotions, they need to prevent from multiple accounts or abusers.

It is normal that every centralized casino will ask you for KYC.  Because they set up their physical office and operate the casino, they never want any money laundering or any other illegal activity through their platform, so they always require kyc from the user so that anyone doing any illegal activity can be brought to justice as soon as possible. But if a platform doesn't ask you for KYC and they claim that they are a good centralized casino platform then consider it a fraud cycle so double check before investing there.

I prefer a solution where you do not have to identify yourself, if you do not withdraw a lot of money on a frequent basis. A money launderer needs to deposit money into casinos, then use as little money as possible and then withdraw it onto the "legal" financial system with frequent withdraws.

Most "real" gamblers will deposit money.... play with most of it... and then only withdraw when they hit something big. So casinos should use technology to identify money laundering activities and then block people's accounts that has been flagged for it. (Only then ask for KYC information)

Well, it’s hard to disclose our personal information online but what else can we do, in no time all centralized exchanges will require KYC particularly for those big winners who are able to win such huge amounts. So it’s either leave the casino and not to gamble anymore, or just give the casino staff our personal details. So there’s no solution to KYC, but to accept it that it will be here for good, and there’s no way escaping it.

Limitations for non-KYC.
How much amount? Country-based limitations, we have different amounts on how much it will be triggered. This will be a lot of work for a gambling platform but there is no solution here that would benefit both sides.
Online gambling companies that will offer non-KYC will be cornered by their government and might even be sued for money laundering.
Gamblers don't want their identity out.
So, that's the only solution I can think of. You can gamble as non-KYC but if you hit the limit then you cannot play again until it is refreshed.

I prefer crypto casinos without KYC. And in fact, although I have tried a few of them, I have never been asked for KYC. It also has to do with the fact that I don't bet large amounts, and in some of these casinos the ToS talk about KYC requirements above certain amounts.

I think that if KYC requirements become generalised in the future and it happens like in fiat casinos, cryptocurrency casinos will lose a large part of their appeal and their business.

Sooner or later people will understand the need of this KYC obligation  , it may not appear for now or the following year but surely in the future this will be implemented in every casino online or else they will be run down by government that wanted to take part of their income lol.
so KYC or not ? lets live with it or understand its function from now so we will only enjoy our gaming without any issues soon.

KYC seems here to stay already even the decentralized casinos that are yet not asking for KYC may actually ask if they are sanctioned. There is Betfury and the likes, I think they are not asking KYC AFAIK but until when?

Crypto is regulated. We're likely not going to escape this regulation unless you completely isolate yourself to a close crypto community with unknown coin.