Topic: Why they need a license if bitcon is not money? - page 6. (Read 4439 times)

We really need more KYC-free casinos and KYC-free bookmakers. Players only need 3 functions: making a deposit, being able to play fairly, and withdrawing winnings if there is a win. I believe that the gaming industry should gradually become more and more decentralized. However, states and governments are currently taking a very contradictory position on cryptocurrencies: on the one hand, they refuse to recognize Bitcoin as a means of payment, on the other hand, they want Bitcoiners to pay taxes. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Regulation is one of the most important thing when we are talking about gambling. These are customers funds and any dev or part of the casino team can decide to run away with the fund without any trades. This is why regulation of casino is obviously important so that we that are gamblers can be rest assured that we can play games depositing our funds without the fear of the casino blocking our account with the accusation that we have breached their terms and conditions just to make sure that we don't have access to our funds.
The regulation makes it strict for casinos owners to misbehave depriving customers of their right to acquire and seek the help of government if anything fishy is going on.

I share your view, casinos need BTC, and the main reason is the number of rival casinos accepting it are many, this alone could cause them to lose customers as it is not convenient for many people in different countries of the world to deposit and withdraw through fiats arrangements, they can go elsewhere with their money.

So, this is not about Bitcoin but the casinos, and for them to achieve their goal whilst they operate in a certain country, they must be accountable and cooperate with the government of the land in line with the extant law. This starts by being registered and regulated by the authorities, which will make the government know much about their services and transactions to know their legality/illegality, inflow/outflow, and also know how to adequately tax them.

For me, this is a win-win for both parties, only that some customers do not find it funny.

Of course, all the gigantic profits from casino activities, including cryptocasinos, should be taxed to the extent that the business itself would benefit and have an incentive to develop this form of business. In other words, government agencies in different jurisdictions need to do so that casinos would have money left for development programs, and not just to cover current operating expenses. Probably, it is Curacao that offers casinos approximately such conditions. It is not for nothing that many casinos have registered there. But I hope that gradually other free zones and their officials will also realize that they could earn good money by simply licensing gambling activities on a global scale. However, so far it is not heard that such jurisdictions are big. On the contrary, there are just few of them. Most likely, this is due to the fact that US legislation has not yet properly resolved the issue of the legal status of cryptocurrencies.  This is what is slowing down the process of creating such free zones in other parts of the world for licensing activities with cryptocurrency payments and resolving issues of their taxation.

Yeah, Curacao is the most popular across the gambling!

I think that we can use Curacao just like an example. Like the Trinidad, Barbados, etc. In one situation it would be license, in the other - taxes. The main idea is that casino get profit from using BTC that`s why they need a license(or to pay taxes). The casino have to share their profit with the government in some way.

Well,. you're partially correct there is no taxes like we used to see in most countries but I read there is 2% corporate tax applies to the net profits which is really fair amount to be honest and casinos will be paying that amount to the regulators to keep the money flows in while paying little to nothing to the government.

@joniboini, there is no big deal about this discussion, after all, this is a forum, it's a place to discuss what we do not know and this certain discussion is even technical and the OP has a valid reason to have thrown the question on board. Bitcoin on its own is decentralised, and so is what was supposed to be for all that is linked with it. But the OP forget that it is not about privacy anymore when centralised systems are using Bitcoin, there must be some revelation (transaction tracing) through it. And since they cannot hide and are still working under some certain jurisdictions and law, they must abide with some rules and regulations, and hence, the need for the licensing. However, that simple explanation could have eluded the OP which must have birthed this thread, and I must say it is an appropriate question yarning for clarification.

Also, @mak013, For me, this shows no difference between money and Bitcoin but the OP wants it to appear so. Bitcoin is used just as fiat could be used in this context, and no matter how it looks, once the dealers (any company whatsoever) using it are centralised, then Bitcoin loses its characteristics indirectly in relation to the dealer. So why not get licensed (the companies) when you do not operate a decentralised system like Bitcoin?

FortuneFollower, mak013 and Findingnemo, looks like you are wrong guys, since casinos are registered in curacao then they follow their tax rules, so, lets take a look to those tax rules:

Source: https://lawrange.net/en/services/crypto-license-registration-in-curacao/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20capital%20gains,or%20exchanging%20and%20selling%20crypto.

Source: https://fastoffshore.com/2023/04/forming-a-curacao-company-for-token-issuance/

This should be one of the main reasons why casinos choose curacao for the gambling licence, And this is crazy, we know Stake is a billion company and the fact that they don't have to pay taxes is just insane. But the gov should be making enough money from the gambling licenses, that's a fact.

As long as they're registered they are liable to pay taxes, the amount can be whatever the audit shows which can be the right amount or something they just want to show they're paying taxes and it's not just casinos almost every corporate finds way to pay lesser taxes. I am not an auditor so can't be sure how they keep track especially with the volatility of cryptos prices but they are supposed to do that as per the laws.

Not very good example but it is first I remembered about: gold is not money to, but you can convert it into money. I think that casino use BTC for getting profit. So they have to pay taxes. That means, that they have to acquire licenses. But you are right that it doesn`t protect gamblers. As for me - these licenses don`t cares about gamblers. It is only about the casino and the government/tax services. May be if you live in Curacao and casino has Curacao`s license it can help, but i don`t sure even in such situation.


I don`t know how they pay taxes. But if they have license, they have to show profit and pay taxes. I don`t know how to calculate it. We`re talking about it in the other thread, the result of discussion is that casino must convert cryptocurrencies in USD or local currency during the withdrawal. Gambler get cryptocurrency, and for tax service casino shows difference between deposit and withdrawal converted in USD. Of course we don`t know how it is in realty but it looks like the best choice for all.

If the casino has a license, it is obliged to pay it. I think that they transfer crypto to USDT at the deposit stage or pay at the BTC price at the moment of tax payment!

How do you know they pay taxes from it? That's a tricky point of view because where does the profit come from? if you think about it part of the profit is from gambling, but the market price bump represents profit for the casino too, a good example is how the bitcoin price was at $16k on Jan 22, and right now is $64k, with that market change the casinos multiply their bankroll x4, so, if they have to pay taxes I'm not sure how would that work.

I'm not sure whether you agree with my previous post or not, but I take it you think Bitcoin is not similar to money, but casinos need to follow the law and acquire licenses because they still make a profit from it. I'm not sure if others already mentioned that since we're on page 17 already, at the very least some of us believe that a license does not guarantee anything from the point of its users. It doesn't give them protection, guarantee that a casino is legit, etc.

Casino get cryptocurrencies and get profit from using it. They have to pay taxes from profit. BTC can`t be used everywhere as a paying method. So it can`t be equal to the local currency. If it would be possible to pay with BTC everywhere - it would be possible to use it in some way like local currency and it can be possible to tax service to work with it.
Of course it is not a decision but it is the way how to adapt BTC to legalization.

Well, I don't think knowing how difficult it is to spend Bitcoin on a coffee shop will help us know why the government requires crypto casinos to have a license. You can argue that these difficulties are why Bitcoin is not a good choice as a means of transaction, hence why the government doesn't think of it as money, but it would bring more questions instead. You can use that to argue why casino licenses should not be mandatory instead. CMIIW.

It may be so, but the same time it shows the difference between BTC and money. I think that it is important enough and discussion about such problems help us to get an answer to the OPs question.


Of course it is so. As BTC user, i can only applaud new opportunities of it usage. But anyway we see that BTC can be only additional paying method and can`t become higher than fiat money.

If we are in the country that  Bitcoin is allowed then this is a good one we can buy what we want to buy using bitcoins and pay our crypto currency to the vendor as long as the vendor have a wallet that they can store the Bitcoin or crypto that we used to pay . Every now and then some convenience store start accepting Bitcoin or other crypto currency which is pretty good enough if we have some crypto then we want to buy in thier products then it's good to have a transactions.

I think the discussion about problems with BTC for offline transactions is getting a bit off-topic for this thread, it would be better to start a discussion in another thread IMO. Whether Bitcoin is easy to use for everyday transactions has little relevance to the government regulating cryptocurrency casinos, especially when most of them are online. Even if there are offline casinos that accept Bitcoin as a payment to buy chips, the law likely considers Bitcoin as a legal means of payment even if they don't lump it together with fiat. CMIIW.

There are two main problems when we want to buy something using BTC. First of all it must be allowed in the country/state, where we are. And the second problem is the problems with the pay process. We must find somebody, who can use BTC, he can have an possibility to make a bill, it must be internet around. And something else, that i possible forgot. It is about real life. In the internet we can buy much more using cryptocurrencies of course.