Isn't that because the owners too need to be able to spend their money legally? Anyone could create an online crypto casino, and as long as the owner is anonymous, they could run it on .onion and stay anonymous. But when they grow bigger, and the owners are swimming in money, they can't explain all that wealth to their local government without making their casino fully compliant.
I don't know, some of the casino licenses are from tax havens, with fairly lax regulations and low profit tax, if they impose any tax at all. Surely they have more leeway to be able to spend funds that have no clear origin than if they had a license, say, from some EU country. The reason I don't know, but there is a general trend in the world to more and more KYC/AML everywhere, even the number of tax havens has reduced considerably from a few decades ago to today.
I have been thinking a lot about this issue, which I think will be a topic of much discussion in the coming years, and so far, I have come to the following conclusions:
1) The top privacy advocates I see on the forum are on average quite a bit smarter than the average citizen and the average forum user and quite a bit more tech-savy than the average Bitcoin user.
2) I think that this blacklist is useless, because only the minority of people in point 1 are going to pay attention to it. Let's look at an example:
If Best Change is unreliable, it's not just a matter of not using their services. The responsible users of the forum should not advertise it in their signature either. There are currently 24 members in the Best Change campaign and one vacancy for which people are constantly applying.
This blacklist would make sense if it could convince at least some of the participants to leave the campaign, and convince at least some of the potential candidates not to apply for the vacancies.
Is something like this going to happen? No, not at all. That's what I mean by facts and not ideals.
By the way, to me
what Best Change says doesn't sound crazy at all, and if it's so wrong that statement, I don't see why he hasn't been debated on that point in the thread.
The same will happen with Wasabi signature campaign, good luck trying to convince people not to participate in the campaign.
3) And the same could be said about the many casinos advertised on the forum. In this case not so much about clean or dirty coins, but in the attack on privacy. The casino I advertise has KYC requirements, like most of them.
The only ones that I clearly remember that operate without a license and without any KYC requirements are the Lightlord casinos, lol, of great reputation on the forum at least until recently, despite his habit of paying very late.
So, I would believe that this type of blacklists and the defense of privacy that you forum members described in 1) advocate will give any practical result if it would have visible results in the forum. Like convincing those of us who advertise to blackjack.fun or Best Change to stop doing so because they are privacy attacking companies. And convincing people not to apply to fill in the slots.