I do not trust hhampuz.
The reason for that is quite simply he supports proven liars and trust abusers on DT. That alone is reason enough to doubt him. I do not say he is as bad as some but merely supporting them is enough to create sensible suspicion and caution.

I think Thule does have a clear point here after reading through the thread.

If ico's were demonstrating these clear and obvious ID avoidance tactics they could be presumed "possible" scams.
Many DT's would be slapping red on them and anyone that supported them.

I mean ask yourself what means of retribution would you have if these casinos did scam you?

I observe clear double standards once again. On the one hand they fight against the implementation of criteria that would mean red trust can be applied  ONLY to scammers or  those STRONGLY likely to scam. Rather they are claiming it is too late by then and a preemptive strike against them is required to save people from these "possible" scams.

However, here I notice the same people demanding to see proof of scam before any action or criticism is forthcoming from them. Almost defending the ID avoidance tactics now it suits them.

I say that a "responsible" member would not be promoting nor enabling these types of casinos if they want to take the "preemptive" action they advocate for everyone else and any project they are not making money from.
If they believe innocent until they scam or try to scam then fair enough, but their prior arguments suggest this is clear selfishly motivated double standards.

It all boils down to making some btc dust.