Topic: What would be an ideal KYC solution? - page 6. (Read 4934 times)

That's why casinos should be transparent and always make it clear that they intend to do KYC. If users knew that their funds can be blocked if they don't submit documents, many wouldn't deposit anything because KYC is still a grey zone. It's that line many of us don't want to cross. Casinos know about it and they will obfuscate their rules and regulations to make people play and they'll start demanding KYC when a user wins some money. As long as people lose money, there's no KYC and everything is good.

IMO that's abuse and casinos that do it should be avoided.

Not to make this reply a bit off topic but I am not talking about directbet not being an on-chain casino. That question is for a casino that what if it is not an on-chain casino and in this case, what if directbet is not an on-chain casino?. I don't need to read their ann thread since I am asking all about the site more like a KYC of some sort. I know you will be confused as what KYC I really mean and it's not Know Your Customer but Know Your Casino. That's the reason why I ask a question and not about me saying that directbet is not an on-chain casino. What can you say or your opinion if directbet is not an on-chain casino?.
That's what I really want you to answer as shown in the quote.

The big issue is that thousands of players are currently being coerced into handing over valuable personal data to anonymous individuals who take that data and move it to jurisdictions where it has no legal protection.

The data can be packaged into tranches and sold on to multiple buyers. Those buyers can then sell that data on again to other buyers. The victims have lost complete control of their own personal data and both they and their families have to deal with the negative consequences for the rest of their life, or longer.

Ser, DirectBet was one of the old casinos in Bitcoin, but they already closed during 2017 before you registered your account. You can read their announcement thread, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/directbet-live-sportsbook-racebook-now-accepting-ether-393147

They were the only on-chain casino that didn't require the user to open an account, didn't require to deposit their coins, and definitely didn't require KYC. It was truly a censorship-resistant casino built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. It was probably inefficient, and slow when the network was congested, but it was working.

Crypto casinos will not implement KYC because of regulations from regulators that make casinos follow these rules. While this may be tough for crypto casinos, they are trying to comply with the rules. And crypto casinos still give freedom to crypto users not to do KYC in full or more detail for users who bet using small money.

But it's different if you are a big player and often spend a lot of money gambling. Depending on how you use the money to gamble, crypto casinos may ask you to KYC.

While Freebitco.in woudn't ask you to provide KYC regardless how much you made deposit, withdrawal or winnings from this casino

If you're want to gamble on reputable zero KYC casino, only Freebitco.in is the best choice. You can read on their TOS and you wouldn't find any rule about mandatory KYC. As long as you're not cheating or use other suspicious gambling bots, your account will be fine. Because if you did that, your account will get terminated.

The KYC and use of currencies that value the user's privacy depends a lot on the region/country where the casino will be opened.

I am sure that casinos, if they could choose, would not implement KYC or restrict the use of certain cryptocurrencies, the ones who push for this regulation are the governments, because they know that casinos (especially online ones) are very used to commit money laundering, tax evasion and covering up other crimes.

Unfortunately, those who suffer from this are the users.

I believe that KYC should only be mandatory for users who want to withdraw a large amount, and even then it should be enforced with great caution.
As for users who just use the casino for fun, making contributions and spending everything on the game itself, there is no reason to require KYC... these users are just consuming a service.

One more, they will always say that they must ensure that their users are not from certain restricted countries to make them safe. However, this may not be the main reason.

If comparing the pros and cons of doing KYC and not, it will never end, moreover if we are talking about the centralized casino. although they always say that they are high in privacy, when they are asking for KYC this means that they are not dealing with privacy. However, we don't know if they are really trusted enough or not in keeping safe our data. I really hate sending photos of my identity and my face to the KYC identification because this is too private. But sometimes, we don't have the choice to pick the best casino to have. Once more, they will not give us the solution that the term and condition may make the suers afraid to continue.

I have always thought that we need in fact a generational change in order for bitcoin and altcoins to really become as widely adopted as we want, the oldest people I know do not trust banks and prefer to keep their savings in gold, then the next generations that came after them disregarded gold and instead put all their trust in banks and fiat money, and now we are suffering the consequences of that mistake, while younger generations also distrust banks but instead of going for gold they think bitcoin is the solution they have been looking for.

If I remember right, Stake is set at 1,5 BTC lifetime withdrawal limit, once that is reached, the KYC is triggered. But don't take my word for it, it has been a while since my research.

there are still some licensed casinos which do not require kyc from the start as they have certain limits before they require one. like if the user exceeds their accumulated deposits or withdrawals to $2k, that's when they will ask for kyc. but if you are just a small roller, they won't ask even if it is stated on their ToS that they require kyc. but with this kind of casino, a player should always be ready to submit his kyc docs, it means, better play on a reputable site even if you are a small roller.

Maybe for now, Stake is still giving an exception and just require KYC whenever a huge amount is being withdrawn. But I’m not totally sure if it stays that way for long when most of the casinos are already requiring it from the start, and you can read it in their own rules that as long as KYC is required, user should submit to it. So let’s just be realistic about KYC, there is no solution to it, the government has set its rules and casinos are obliged to follow.

The best solution that I'd expect from casinos is to be straightforward and honest from the start.

If they demand KYC from everyone they should put it in their TOS and make it clear - you make an account you will be asked for KYC.
If they demand KYC at random they should stop it and want it only from users who withdraw upwards of a certain (disclosed) amount.

They should also allow users to delete accounts and allow them to request that all their data including IP and email is deleted on request. No private data should be held and processed by them and KYC verification should be done by a third party that does it professionally and doesn't store data.

KYC is here for good. Even if we’ll always prefer non-KYC to avoid disclosing our personal information and to stay anonymous, it cannot be possible these days as most of the casinos are completely controlled by the government regardless if they are reputable or not. But if we are to give and submit KYC, then we should always go to the most trusted and reliable casino we know, and definitely not on the new casinos that have not yet proven their credibility.

I don't have bad ideas with gambling casino website required for KYC but need increase up for withdrawing limit user not pass their KYC, not all member are agree with KYC procedure but casino gambling restrict with account huge withdrawing fund and seems fair when limit withdrawing increase up and not impact with user leave casino gambling aware they have pass KYC. I don't know about how much with limit increasing for member without pass KYC because I just withdraw with small fund in gambling casino.

Better withdrawing under $3,000 without need KYC but if withdrawing above this amount the user should KYC earl if want increasing up their withdrawing fund from casino.

For many people, the ideal would be to stop using KYC altogether. But that remains a utopia, of course, that cannot be achieved. I think it is also getting stricter, per license provider. How could you solve that? I think the last thing you want is to offer a gambling site through a jurisdiction where no license is used at all. That is something that customers can often be critical of nowadays. But many gamblers are already familiar with the KYC. At least, people who have been involved in the gambling world for a while will have already experienced this at 95% of the gambling sites. Especially when it comes to a traditional casino, and not just crypto.

I think that's a good idea for being subject to KYC. The whales usually and definitely have to comply with their terms because the sums of money they cash in and out are not a joke amount.
While for the low amounts and accounts that don't have much to gamble and just like betting sometimes with a few bucks, they don't have to be bothered by it.
Yet, there are still metrics and standards the different casinos has so the situation varies and reasons why one has to be subject to KYC.

Unfortunately some casinos are using KYC as an excuse to gather user data and use it for their own commercial purposes. Data which has high value on the international data markets. Take Stake.com for example who operate within the legal jurisdiction of Curacao:


> They have no legal requirement to gather players data,* the law in curacao does not currently require them to gather players data.

> The data they do gather has no legal protection, if there are laws of data protection relating to your personal jurisdiction, stake can circumvent those laws by transferring the data to a country where it has no legal protection.

> Stake.com offer no guarantees of safety for that data and accept no responsibility for what happens to it after you send it to them.

> Buried in their privacy statement Stake.com state that they collect data for the purpose of using players data to increase profit levels and also admit an intention to offer that data to any potentially interested parties** (at a price I assume).

At any time they can effectively hold your funds as ransom until you send them data of high commercial value, data which they can do with as they like. Once it is in their data base they can hold on to it for ever, irrespective of any requests you may submit for its removal.



*Jurisdiction
Stake is not a financial institution within the meaning of applicable law of Curaçao and is accordingly not directly subject to the statutes and regulations applicable to certain financial institutions, -https://stake.com/policies/

**Collection Purposes
To create aggregate data about Members through demographic profiling, statistical analysis of the database to provide to potential and existing stakeholders, and to allow for more efficient operation of Stake.com’s business. https://stake.com/policies/privacy

***All information processed by us may be transferred, processed, and stored anywhere in the world, including but not limited to other countries, which may have data protection laws that are different from the laws where you live. https://stake.com/policies/privacy

I think the best would be to set up an amount,a minimum amount that they must ask for KYC before proceeding your withdrawal.I am in favor of 10.000 dollars as in developed countries that is a maximum of three minimum to average salaries and everybody can have that amount,of course we are in crypto and the privacy is extremely loved by all the crypto guys,I also don't think criminals would be laundering money in such low amounts (hopefully I am not giving them an idea here  ) so that would be my ideal solution.

Of course the casino may low that amount as a minimum monthly salary in developed countries like 2000-3000 dollars and then asking KYC,for whales I fully agree KYC is super needed.

Casinos rarely tell the truth about what is going on in their business and keep it all to themselves. If they are required to explain, they will not go into detail because it concerns the situation at their casino. But usually, there will be people who will say what happened to the casino but we won't know who they are or their motives. From there, casinos want to open up about what's going on in their business.

We as gamblers, need to be aware of who has done KYC at the casino because this concerns the data we submitted to the casino. We certainly don't want to see our data being misused by hackers and even selling the data to other parties. A reputable casino can protect all customer data, including keeping their finances from being taken by hackers.