It was indeed sarcastic with reasons behind explained, just as you write yourself now that sites require this.

As I just withdraw from another account with skrill where I never deposited, it shows me again it is not an absolute must by ewallets nor networks.

Therefore I have a hard time answering Shane's strange answer, where it is not exactly clear to me who is to blame, their processors they chose, the ewallets in general or the network they bought, I assume he meant their processors but I am not sure.

Anyways, thanks for your explanation LiarsDice, I see your point you are trying to make and will gladly shut up as far as I can in the future, as long as I have reason to.

Maybe some of the bashing by some is caused by high hopes being extremly disappointed, or seeing something getting worse they once were fond of (eg Goldcards collections).

Anyways, all the best

Im assuming you are a ROW player, in this case you would most likely need to make the minimum deposit with an eWallet to cash out.


When it was originally explained to me by the Merge cashier manager I took him to mean the rule came from Moneybookers themselves.

There have been several situations since where I have come across the same rule from other eWallets, so much so that I have taken it to be pretty standard across the industry.

I haven't needed to push for further explanation as to from whom the rule originates, while its an annoying rule (especially with the move to Revolution) its easily solved.

What confuses me about the rule is that funds can be immediately withdrawn so there is no great benefit. Its not like the funds get locked in and used, the player can just turn around and add it to the money he was trying to withdraw.

I would understand if it was a verification tool, it would certainly help check the player is who they say they are. But then why did they then require it after the move to Revolution.

Shane, thank you for your honest answer of not being sure about something.
Not only makes this you more human but also clarifies some things.

But before, regarding players transfers question from schuurmer, is there really no playthrough requirement before withdrawing, are you sure?

Back to topic, as long as players are less inclined to withdraw, with small obstacles, the better for profits, locking the money would be too much, as being an operator you have to make a balance between making it not too easy for players to withdraw, but easy enough to feel comfortable putting money on, knowing they can get hold of it when they want it.
Verification is certainly a point, I assume the rule was just reapplied without taking time to import previous data.

So, overall, though I do not completely agree with the rule, I understand why it exists and it has it's reasons, just wanted to express that sites that put up rules or work within them should stand up to them and not blame them on someone else, at least towards the public, as the sites are the ones customers have to deal with.

That said, though I understand it is a bit of pain for those affected (and fixing it might help them being happy campers playing more), in absolute numbers their numbers is probably less then those affected by other more severe money transfer problems, like long withdrawing times, which applies not only for US players in the current situation but also ROW, at least being more responsive about it or even actively communicating.
Also making transfers more secure in light of recent developments, which I hope you are working on anyways.
And of course double deposits or vanishing ones are a no-no.

So, if this method-of-deposit-to-withdraw rule can easily be improved to be more userfriendly within security measures I'd say go for it, otherwise focussing on the other issues listed above should be given higher priority, if possible to improve, in my humble opinion.

Cheers