I have always said that the best way to go on with KYC is that you could ask for it if there is a problem. If there are no problems, and the money is low, and there is no big wins, the idea to ask for it makes no sense to me. Let's say I deposited 100 dollars somewhere, wagered around 2k dollars, and lost my 100 dollars and now I have nothing, why would the casino need my KYC for this?
There are some casinos that ask for it upfront, you don't know if I will even wager yet, just calm down. This is why ask for it if there is a need to ask, but if there are no needs and nothing is going on then there is also no reason to ask for it neither.
Topic: What would be an ideal KYC solution? - page 8. (Read 4987 times)
Hey guys,
With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
Efialtis from BTCGosu mentioned that some of the casino managers make exceptions, and I can imagine how that's possible, but I'm curious in what you would like to see there.
Regarding KYC: Their management confirmed with me personally that they would not enforce KYC. (Same old story, we could of course argue about that just like with any curacao licensed crypto casino) - the good news is when I have personal confirmation of such a statement, then I am putting a "No" and if they break their word at any point of time, I would take action. That is how I have always been handling this topic and how I will continue doing it.
Casino's rules are always the ones to be followed, never the players, if the player doesn't want to undergo KYC, they are always free to leave and find some other place that doesn't require them to do so. Honestly I am in support of it, the fact that it gives you some sense of safety because at the very least everyone who gambles in that site did the same thing as you and is subject to the extent of laws you are subjected to as well should one of them decide to mess with you or your account. I don't roll with no KYC because it's a bit iffy for me, sometimes even scary because if I could easily gamble and withdraw, this means that when I get hacked the hacker would have no trouble getting all my funds. With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
Efialtis from BTCGosu mentioned that some of the casino managers make exceptions, and I can imagine how that's possible, but I'm curious in what you would like to see there.
Regarding KYC: Their management confirmed with me personally that they would not enforce KYC. (Same old story, we could of course argue about that just like with any curacao licensed crypto casino) - the good news is when I have personal confirmation of such a statement, then I am putting a "No" and if they break their word at any point of time, I would take action. That is how I have always been handling this topic and how I will continue doing it.
As a gambler, we all know that KYC is required by most gambling platforms and there's no way to avoid it. KYC is required for compliance, to avoid money laundering and any abuse. It's better to read their TOS regarding KYC as in some gambling platforms KYC isn't mandatory unless you hit a certain amount of deposit/withdrawal and if there's any suspicious activity while using their platform (cheating or abuse).
There is no solution to it.
Just be aware of their rules before signing it and these days, most of them are likely to ask you kyc for whatever reasons they want to say. Accept the fact that the governments can no longer be cool by not having these casinos ask for kycs.
They've got their reasons, the casino has got reasons and we also got our reasons whether we will continue signing up and gambling with them or not.
Just be aware of their rules before signing it and these days, most of them are likely to ask you kyc for whatever reasons they want to say. Accept the fact that the governments can no longer be cool by not having these casinos ask for kycs.
They've got their reasons, the casino has got reasons and we also got our reasons whether we will continue signing up and gambling with them or not.
Each casino has to run their rules and the users have to deal with it. It's either they will take it or leave it. In some instances, players just complay with the KYC to continue playing on the site. As long as the site has a good reputation, I don't think KYC should be feared. I'm sure that they will never ruin their reputation by leaking their player's personal details. KYC is getting mandatory nowadays and we should just have to deal with it.
- You know dude, first of all, we can't do anything if a casino has any rules, because we as gamblers have no other choice but to follow the rules they have if we want to continue gambling on their gambling platform, that's it and that's easy to understand.
Now, if other gamblers don't want KYC, it's still their choice whether they want to gamble there or not. All I know is that when a casino is in a regulated industry, it's normal for them to ask for KYC from their clients or users. And even though it is not regulated, the casino still has the right if they still want to ask for KYC.
Now, if other gamblers don't want KYC, it's still their choice whether they want to gamble there or not. All I know is that when a casino is in a regulated industry, it's normal for them to ask for KYC from their clients or users. And even though it is not regulated, the casino still has the right if they still want to ask for KYC.
Before you choose KYC casino, you need to read the whole TOS first, you will find KYC mandatory rule and they can ask it in anytime. I think the reason why choose a KYC casino is you're already trust with that casino, I think when you already trust on that casino, you should trust anything that you submit to that casino too. This can be your username, password, email, IP address, Bitcoin address etc. Actually if you've link your Bitcoin address and IP address from your centralized exchange, the casino could know your identity if they ask the centralized exchange. You must have submitted your KYC to centralized exchange right?
This is reality mate if you will trust your casino then you should agree all the rules and regulations in that particular casino like KYC if they ask you a KYC then it's okay it because you trust your casino. But before you choose your casino make it sure that casino is reputable enough to be trusted. Because if you choose trusted casino you will be comfortable with enough to do anything and also you are comfortable enough to give your information.
Hey guys,
With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
Efialtis from BTCGosu mentioned that some of the casino managers make exceptions, and I can imagine how that's possible, but I'm curious in what you would like to see there.
Regarding KYC: Their management confirmed with me personally that they would not enforce KYC. (Same old story, we could of course argue about that just like with any curacao licensed crypto casino) - the good news is when I have personal confirmation of such a statement, then I am putting a "No" and if they break their word at any point of time, I would take action. That is how I have always been handling this topic and how I will continue doing it.
With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
Efialtis from BTCGosu mentioned that some of the casino managers make exceptions, and I can imagine how that's possible, but I'm curious in what you would like to see there.
Regarding KYC: Their management confirmed with me personally that they would not enforce KYC. (Same old story, we could of course argue about that just like with any curacao licensed crypto casino) - the good news is when I have personal confirmation of such a statement, then I am putting a "No" and if they break their word at any point of time, I would take action. That is how I have always been handling this topic and how I will continue doing it.
Perhaps it would be good to have a single, super secure platform and potentially using some sort of Blockchain/nft solution to store documents - that could be used to validate whether someone has genuine documents. Maybe where different sources could give ratings, maybe whether certain ratings might hold extra weight (document was verified in-person). But to keep the anonymity side it would have to be somehow decentralised or in a jurisdiction that would not force documents to be disclosed.
I'm actually not sure how much is what they consider highroller where they mandate to submit KYC? $50K?
From the research that I did most of them range between 1 BTC and 3 BTC, it depends on the casino. Some claim even 4, but those weren't licensed to begin with, so I have no clue.
3BTC is a bit small for suspecting money laundering but maybe if the value is sky-high it would be fair. Regulation is really here and we can't keep things unregulated since it's always the way before innovations are adopted for all.
My question is just that are we just too naive to think this regulation would be good for us and crypto and that giving up our privacy is worth it?
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.
Personally, it’s best to just comply whatever the casino require us to do so, if they ask for KYC, then we should do it willingly. Because in less than a year or two, everything will be asking for KYC not only in gambling casinos but also in other areas wherein KYC is a must too. So instead of trying to be anonymous to retain our privacy, why not just follow the rules and comply with KYC. Otherwise, you won’t be allowed to gamble at all.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.
But not all gamblers will voluntarily want to do KYC because surely some will be disappointed to see that their favorite casino has now asked them to do it.
Maybe they will move and look for other casinos that do not implement KYC so they can continue to gamble anonymously.
We should think about it before deciding, but as long as we use a trusted casino, I don't think there will be any problems for the members.
Before you choose KYC casino, you need to read the whole TOS first, you will find KYC mandatory rule and they can ask it in anytime. I think the reason why choose a KYC casino is you're already trust with that casino, I think when you already trust on that casino, you should trust anything that you submit to that casino too. This can be your username, password, email, IP address, Bitcoin address etc. Actually if you've link your Bitcoin address and IP address from your centralized exchange, the casino could know your identity if they ask the centralized exchange. You must have submitted your KYC to centralized exchange right?
One thing that I could think of when there's a KYC is because it involves money laundering and if these establishment using Banks they will implement the KYC sooner or later especially if there's a huge cash flows. They want to know everything and I think it's part of the rules that they want to list everything in a ledger.
So, if you don't like a casino asking for KYC then, don't play on their casino because no matter what you do to avoid their KYC you'll still going to do the KYC somehow once you win or try to withdraw your funds on their casino.
So, if you don't like a casino asking for KYC then, don't play on their casino because no matter what you do to avoid their KYC you'll still going to do the KYC somehow once you win or try to withdraw your funds on their casino.
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.
Personally, it’s best to just comply whatever the casino require us to do so, if they ask for KYC, then we should do it willingly. Because in less than a year or two, everything will be asking for KYC not only in gambling casinos but also in other areas wherein KYC is a must too. So instead of trying to be anonymous to retain our privacy, why not just follow the rules and comply with KYC. Otherwise, you won’t be allowed to gamble at all.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.
which doesnt still ask out for some KYC and this is where people do flock out and be playing on these platforms since they could still able to play anonymously.
If you've been get stucked with those funds of yours and requiring some KYc then its up to your own choice whether you would be complying or
totally accept out that those funds or money had been lost totally.
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.
Personally, it’s best to just comply whatever the casino require us to do so, if they ask for KYC, then we should do it willingly. Because in less than a year or two, everything will be asking for KYC not only in gambling casinos but also in other areas wherein KYC is a must too. So instead of trying to be anonymous to retain our privacy, why not just follow the rules and comply with KYC. Otherwise, you won’t be allowed to gamble at all. 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.
There will be no solution for this, KYC will be implemented and it will serve its purpose.
You can avoid these platforms asking for your KYC as much as you want but sooner or later, other site will also implement this one. Being anonymous here only applies if you are not using any centralized platform and remain an anonymous investors. If the regulatory agency started to make pressure on exchanges and casinos, probably they will comply right away or else they will not be allowed to operate.
You can avoid these platforms asking for your KYC as much as you want but sooner or later, other site will also implement this one. Being anonymous here only applies if you are not using any centralized platform and remain an anonymous investors. If the regulatory agency started to make pressure on exchanges and casinos, probably they will comply right away or else they will not be allowed to operate.
The same with the exchanges that has to force KYC, they can limit their users into different tiers for which those that don't want KYC can still play with them but with lower features and perks with their accounts. But regardless of that and they say that they won't be requiring any kyc even in the future, don't trust them blindly because they can be forced to do that as you've said about the regulators pushing them in doing so. They can't do anything with that even if they want to balance it together with their players, they just can't go against the regulators that has the control to their business and can be halted anytime.
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.
Perhaps the best solution is to accept KYC for good because it’s where it’s definitely going to. And to think that gambling platforms are manipulated by the centralized government, then everything their orders should be followed, and KYC should be strict implemented. Although there are some casinos who only ask KYC when there are huge amount of winnings, but it’s expected that in the long run, KYC will always be compulsory by any means. 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.
With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
Honestly, even if we propose something balanced here, what else we can do if KYC now becomes a must requirement for a gambling site? No choice but to follow or leave that site if anyone is not interested and feel comfortable on doing so. For me, as long as KYC will only be required in certain activities that a user can trigger their alarm, that would be fine.
As for my own approach, if KYC will really be mandated, I will study first the KYC terms of that site. From there, my decision to play on that site will depend on how the term goes. Besides, I'm open to comply with KYC for a gambling site that I'm using for long.
On the other hand, if it's about complying KYC with other sites that I rarely used to or those who are new to business, I will refrain from using them unless I saw something "special" that can lure me on that site.
I think the best solution is no KYC, no custody, no accounts period... You should be able to use the blockchain for bets and have everything settled on chain. Double spends took down the only online casino that ever attempted to operate this way (directbet.eu) but it was glorious while it lasted. There was no way to make a deposit so that removed the concern of having your funds stolen in a hack. Everything was viewable on chain so you knew that things were operating as expected and bets were immediately settled. A shame that someone took advantage of double spends to cause the owner to walk away.
The current solution that some casinos have is already good IMO since their verification process would have several levels and as you've mentioned they have certain triggers for it. They're trying to adapt the solutions from exchanges but I don't see any better way to improve or balance it even further since not all casinos can avoid it permanently as I know that some casinos that didn't use to do KYC suddenly introduced some sort of rule recently.
Jump to: