Quote from: Mahdirakib on Today at 04:24:35 PM

@efialtis, We have recently seen the trend that some betting sites are introducing themselves as 'Anonymous' and 'No-KYC' platform. While they reserve the right to ask the users to complete the verification on some specific cases (e.g. suspicious activity). And there are also complaints against those casinos that they are asking the users to complete the KYC verification during withdrawal. All these things are messed up. Example of such casinos:

• Betpanda.io | Anonymous Crypto Casino | Welcome Bonus Up to 1BTC
• Casinopunkz.io | Anonymous Crypto Casino | No KYC | 100% Welcome Bonus
• 🔥 Nitrowinner.com 🚀 Top Online Anonymous Crypto Casino Non KYC | 100% Bonuses

Don't you consider this as a bad way of marketing? You have also mentioned 'No KYC' in the 'POSITIVES' part of Betpanda review on BTCGOSU. There is nothing exceptional on these casinos to do the marketing as anonymous casino. Most other betting sites have same rules for KYC verification.

I agree with you, when you market yourself as "No KYC", you shouldn`t enforce it ever - that would be the ideal case. However, we all know that operators in 99% of cases have KYC in their terms. In such cases, I have always felt it`s still worth differentiating between brands that REALLY rarely ever request KYC (Stake, Sportsbet, BC.Game, etc. until recently).

It sucks big time when an operators claims "No KYC" and actually requests it "all the time"...

To be honest, the KYC subject is on my agenda but I still haven`t decided 100% about how I am going to treat it - I may mark each and every operator with KYC enforced unless we are really talking about decentralized sites or operators that literally don`t have KYC mentioned in their terms.

I am busy right now so I can`t look into the Betpanda case but I have a new contact there and I am sharing the thread right now. Unfortunately, there`s nothing I can do about the other two since I don`t work with them (haven`t even heard of them).