Alt Jurisdictions Options for Curaçao's iGaming homeless

[justdoit]

I will trust BC to play even without licence if they add card paypal or skrill deposit, 3 years now never had any problems with them, all deposit or withdraw gets paid under 5mins

 

[jasonuk]

Why? So we can all slope back to SOW land?

Not necessarily - it's about putting steps in place to protect the player when something goes wrong.

As people have mentioned in other threads, some of these Curacao companies are literally money laundering - i.e. the ones who are supposed to be shut down by AML regulations. It's a farce when people complain about the AML regulations being overbearing, but turn a blind eye to actual money laundering because it suits them.

Similarly, some are using fraudulent behaviour to further their business, such as the fake money streamers - and naturally there are those who are honest operators, who despite the weak jurisdiction are doing a good job and have few complaints or concerns.

I guess the counterargument will come back to the original standoff - operators willing to deploy fake games rather than providers taking a stand or operators agreeing to abide by a higher standard (e.g. responsible gambling, ringfenced funds etc) and raise the bar.

Of course players could vote with their wallet, but given the target audiences of the fake money streamers I doubt some of them know what responsibilities are let alone responsible gambling.

 

[satchnz]

Not necessarily - it's about putting steps in place to protect the player when something goes wrong.

As people have mentioned in other threads, some of these Curacao companies are literally money laundering - i.e. the ones who are supposed to be shut down by AML regulations. It's a farce when people complain about the AML regulations being overbearing, but turn a blind eye to actual money laundering because it suits them.

Similarly, some are using fraudulent behaviour to further their business, such as the fake money streamers - and naturally there are those who are honest operators, who despite the weak jurisdiction are doing a good job and have few complaints or concerns.

I guess the counterargument will come back to the original standoff - operators willing to deploy fake games rather than providers taking a stand or operators agreeing to abide by a higher standard (e.g. responsible gambling, ringfenced funds etc) and raise the bar.

Of course players could vote with their wallet, but given the target audiences of the fake money streamers I doubt some of them know what responsibilities are let alone responsible gambling.

Let’s be careful not to tar all crypto/Curacao casinos with the same brush. There are some that have been proven thus far to be fair and fast with withdrawals without all the overbearing BS that you can encounter from UKGC casinos. Sure this could change on a dime for some places, but there are also plenty of posts on here about UKGC licensed casinos trying on some shady practices too.

In terms of responsible gambling, well that’s a separate topic and one that doesn’t seem to have any sensible answers…

 

[jasonuk]

Let’s be careful not to tar all crypto/Curacao casinos with the same brush.

I'm not? I mentioned criminal, dishonest, and honest... as to how big each of those three groups are is an exercise for someone with far more experience of that sector. We can confidently state all three are non-zero in size, but beyond that I wouldn't want to guess.

As to your second point, that's the crux of this - is it a race to the top, or a race to the bottom. I've been pretty vocal about the UKGC (and others like KSA) not doing a good enough job, and I'm not for a second going to suggest regulation is the perfect solution because as we've seen in the UK it has brought both positives and negatives.

But regardless of the regulatory environment, getting rid of the bad eggs makes it better for everyone - because right now whether you play crypto or not, the bad eggs have had a seriously negative impact in the past couple of years.

 

[Guntis]

With crypto casinos, I'd say the main worry could be eventually seeing smaller sites start to disappear/shut down. Now, new ones are opening almost daily, all with near-instant payouts, the same games, no KYC checks, etc. - essentially identical services.

There's competition, but not a crazy one yet. But at some point, there will be lots of casinos, and many will be forced to close down or start implementing dodgy restrictions to stay afloat.

As payout speeds, no KYC, and the same games are available across these sites, in the long run, those with better loyalty offerings will gain more preference among players and more promotion by affiliates, especially when payouts are timely and solid. Many others will simply become equal to AresCasino.

For many the best solution will be just to close down (possibly taking players' funds) and start over again.

How much does that Costa Rican paper cost, 20k euros? It's nothing for the gambling business. And there's not even much point in having one as most popular providers are available at casinos without any licensing. There were about 15 providers a year or so ago, and now there are more:

• 1spin4win
• Amatic
• Belatra
• BGaming
• Big Time Gaming
• Booming Games
• ELK
• Endorphina
• Evolution
• Felix Gaming
• Fugaso
• GameArt
• Gamebeat
• Gamzix
• Habanero
• Hacksaw Gaming
• Lucky
• Mancala
• Mascot
• Nolimit City
• Nucleus
• OnlyPlay
• Platipus
• Play'n GO
• Pragmatic Play
• Push Gaming
• Quickspin
• Relax Gaming
• Spinomenal
• Thunderkick
• TrueLab
• Wazdan

 

[jasonuk]

It sounds like a variation of the RTP curve:

• Few providers (e.g. 2013) - upstarts (NetEnt etc) push the RTP higher, operators don't have leverage to stop it and fall in line
• Many providers (e.g. 2020) - operators start playing the smaller providers off against each other to offer lower RTPs in exchange for visibility, other providers don't have the leverage to stop it and fall in line

If the list is correct, it's crazy that so many are willing to offer games without any license at all though - Evolution and Playtech (via Quickspin) stand out there given their size and regulatory standing.

 

[slot_zombie]

I believe nearly every provider apart from Rival and Light & Wonder is available via the crypto route.

Rival seem to keep to Rival-only casinos. Shame, I quite enjoy their daffy low variance games

 

[Guntis]

From well-known, i couldn't see Netent, Yggdrasil, Novomatic, Ezugi, and Playtech on the site i checked. Many others were ready to play. The above list is copy/paste from the site's dropdown.

 

[slot_zombie]

From well-known, i couldn't see Netent, Yggdrasil, Novomatic, Ezugi, and Playtech on the site i checked. Many others were ready to play. The above list is copy/paste from the site's dropdown.

All of those are available - will vary by site, of course.

 

[maxd]

FWIW and apropos of not much we've been hearing Mexico come up in conversation recently regarding Curaçao casinos looking for a new roost. Apparently they did revamp their gaming laws in 2023 though I've yet to absorb enough legalese to see what, if anything, has changed there to suddenly make Mexico an attractive option.

- Max

 

[maxd]

Found

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, FWIW (my emphasis):

"It is important to note that Mexican gambling legislation does not expressly mention the term “online gaming”.​

​

Mexican law only states that establishments may take bets through mobile telephones, the internet or electronic devices. In the same way, Mexican regulations indicate that participants in raffles may take part through the internet or by telephone.​

​

In other words, and based on the permits that Mexican law accepts, operators of land-based casinos may request authorisation to carry out online gambling, and national or foreign entities may enter into an agreement with one of the authorised permit holders to operate these activities.​

​

... The Gaming Regulations do not impose any fees for an application for a land-based licence and/or special authorisation for online gaming.​

​

... According to Article 5 of the Gaming Law, licence holders, regardless of other taxes that the corresponding tax laws determine for this purpose, have to pay annual fees, denominated as “participation”, in a range of 1–2% of the net gaming revenue.​

​

..."​

​

So yeah, I can see where Mexico might suddenly become an attractive option. That said, apparently corruption and black market gambling activity are endemic to the gambling scene in Mexico regardless of the laws so might not be that free a ride in the long run.​

 

[Guntis]

In Mexico, there is something attractive about income tax, but i don't know exactly what. I just heard a streamer mention it once.

 

[jasonuk]

foreign entities may enter into an agreement with one of the authorised permit holders to operate these activities.

They can even call them sub-licensees, just like the old days of Curacao!

2% of net gaming revenue (NGR - so gross gaming revenue/yield [GGR/GGY] with costs taken out) would be pretty attractive against the backdrop of regulated markets charging 20%+ (UK is 21% of "remote gaming profits"). Even if Curacao tries to keep the costs down, being forced to exclude the US market is inevitably going to cause the exodus.

 

[Guntis]

...not entirely homeless. This stays in Curacao but has the computer gaming licensing from Anjouan. Apparently, some don't prefer Curacao licensing anymore.

 

[slot_zombie]

Anjouan is coming out of the traps hot right now!

Gamba.com, a brand new Crypto casino accepting players worldwide, is the latest to adopt the prestigious and internationally renowned Anjouan license. Nice casino too.

 

[Guntis]

Tobique license, another Curacao license alternative.