:

None of that answers the question...

ACR doesn't have any issues. Why wouldn't Stars just do what ACR does? You're talking about risk of legal action by the US Government and they've done nothing to ACR. That's a pretty good indication they would do nothing to Stars. ACR would be GONE by now if the US Gov. planned on taking action.

Pokerstars just needs to accept Crypto only from American plays and open back up. UIGEA only applies to bank transactions with Gaming sites. Crypto solves that problem by cutting banks out of the transactions.

It all answers the question in your OP.

Or has this now just turned into the "ACR can do it, why doesn't Stars" thread? Even if it has, there are some answers to that question in my post as well.

You mean why haven't they all these years? Because there's no reason for the answer to have changed. And the answer seems to be that they think they're better off proceeding legally. Or, as I said before - I guess Stars has decided to take the easier route to a few states, with the hope for more.

It indicates no such thing.

Maybe you weren't around on Black Friday. The day before Black Friday, you could have said exactly the same thing, and then the next day, they shut down Stars, but not WPN.

Stars is many times larger than WPN. Also, Stars made an agreement with the US government to only offer poker through regulated sites; WPN didn't. The target on Stars' back was much larger than WPN's then, and would be even more so now.

:

You are comparing a multi billion dollar publically listed company to a back street unregulated business. What ACR does is incredibly close to the line/over it in some instances.

Also, you are saying that Pokerstars/Amaya doesn't need bank accounts? If they accept crypto in the USA they WILL lose their non crypto- friendly banking options in the EU.

I understand how hard it is to comprehend the banking and money regulations in the gaming industry, as I've said before I'd not really believe was a clusterf**k it is if I haven't seen with my own eyes over the years.

But the point remains like Bobo Fett has said, Amaya has an awful lot more to lose than ACR by operating in the US. Stars don't need the US, they are the market leader without them, without US traffic ACR would struggle, so ofc ACR would take more risks to get in the US.

Amaya has the big prize of fully regulated, fully legal, sports betting in the USA, to risk it to increase market share in the smallest part of their business when they already have the market share would make absolutely 0 sense.

This is primarily the reason why Amaya wouldn't touch the US poker market unless it was an vanilla as it gets.

There's nothing to lose when shady unregulated sites are operating without any issues, though.

And, that's hilarious that you're saying Stars "don't need the US" (great grammar.) The USA is literally the BIGGEST online poker market in the entire world.

Stars could accept crypto if they wanted to go back to operating a shady operation as they were post-UIGEA. Stars won't though because they still have a long term of aim of getting back into the US market in a big way. Compromising themselves by taking advantage of an apparent loophole in the law isn't something they are entertaining as they've tried that in the past and look where that got them.

I'm not sure why you started this thread, since you asked a question you don't seem all that interested in hearing people's answers to, or discussing the topic in any meaningful way. There is plenty to lose, as has been pointed out to you already.

Oh, wow, SICK BURN, dude! Can I play too?

Hey, I feel so smart now that I found mistakes in your posts. Hope I haven't opened myself up here - I would be just so humiliated if any errors were found in my posts, because I pride myself on my perfection.

What's your point? As he said, Stars is the market leader without the US, so no, they're not needed.

Would the US be a welcome addition? Of course! But they've decided it makes more sense for them to add states as they become regulated. Sorry you don't like that, but your feelings on the matter don't make it a bad decision.

Besides all the points made in this thread;

Stars would never consider crypto in any way at this moment because its basically unregulated, They will not risk their (future) operation by enabling a relative small portion of players that are willing to go through the hassle to get crypto to be able to deposit before being able to play a game of poker. Additionally they will not be able to predict what the impact crypto regulation will be so in many ways it high risks with very small rewards.

So from a objective business perspective it's just a bad idea.

PokerStars already accepts crypto through people using the Neteller payment provider - you can use your various cryptocurrencies on Neteller to deposit on PokerStars, so this whole thread is based upon an entirely false premise to begin with. More info is available online here: https://www.neteller.com/en/features/cryptocurrency

Very few people do, 'cause the hassle of using cryptocurrencies outweighs its few potential benefits.

Yes, but PokerStars aren’t doing the conversion from crypto to USD, Neteller are. PokerStars aren’t aware of whether the USD deposit they receive has been converted or is just straight USD.

Of course - PokerStars isn't in the payment processing business; they are in the gambling business.

Were you fired for being too sarcastic?

So if I accept payment for killing people, deposit it to my regulated bank account and play some online poker, is Pokerstars now accepting murder money?

Yes. If this is a significant amount which PokerStars allows you to deposit without verifying its source, they can be in serious trouble for letting proceeds of crime get into a player account.

Of course your „regulated bank“ is at fault here as well, but that does not absolve Stars from their legal responsibility in this scenario.

Out of curiosity; are all internet payments subject to (impossible) moral standards? Like if Amazon accepts my $50 payment, do they have to make sure that is not 1/100th murder money? What about my local grocery store?

This is absolutely incorrect. Even in jurisdictions that have "money tracking" policies (usually tracking large amounts of cash for anti-money laundering purposes). The onus on the entity accepting the cash is never as high as "verifying with absolute certainty." Using the murder money example, it is technically impossible for anyone to verify that cash (any amount) is NOT from murdering someone. If all companies had to verify or require proof that money is not from murdering someone, no individual would be able to provide "enough" evidence that they did not murder someone. In fact, all the cash tracking requirement for large amounts, is a record keeping exercise (from a company's perspective) and not a verification exercise. Basically, if you take 25k in cash to the bank, the bank merely gets you to fill out a form declaring what the source was, the bank will merely accept the declaration and cash or not, there is no obligation for the bank to verify what you declare as the source of funds.

Right, this is what I was going for. If anyone accepting any cash money or wire is going to have to verify that it was legit money then it would wipe out half the economy.

I would understand if highly irregular high amounts are subject to a higher degree of verification but there is no way Stars should be required to make sure every deposit isn't any crypto currency converted to USD (or murder money).

I mean every poker player that plays live regularly has laundered so much money it's not even funny any more.

so this went from a very bad idea thread to a how does money work thread.. NVG never disappoints.

You would have to check in your jurisdiction, but Amazon and your local grocery store are most probably not "subject persons" in the context of the relevant laws and regulations, so no, those payments are not subject to the same standards.


Well, no, but this has nothing to do with the (weird) topic of this thread, so let's leave it at that.

I'd say 2020 NVG threads have been complete dumpster fires


also can't believe no one has brought up seals with clubs poker?
https://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/...ilty-22060.htm

FTP/Stars had something like 75 bank accounts frozen in 14 countries on Black Friday (April 15, 2011). Also, their URLs got seized and replaced with government notices.

Even if they switch to crypto, they are based in the UK. The URLs can still be seized, whatever bank accounts they have can be seized, and the executives can be arrested.

No. ACR is too small for the US gov to go after. The US DOJ isn't really there to uphold the law, they're there to seize money when they can use upholding the law as an excuse. Not only does ACR have way less money, they are based in Costa Rica.

Using Crypto doesn't violate UIGEA in any way. So, everything you're saying here is false. In order for the government to shut anything down, they would have to violate a specific Law. UIGEA specifically deals with Bank Transactions to Online Gaming sites. If you use Crypto, there's no Bank Transactions with the Online Gaming sites to initiate a violation of UIGEA...

That's the real reason ACR hasn't been shut down. They're not violating UIGEA by using Crypto...



...

Are you f'ing serious? I know it's extremely difficult for you to string thoughts together, but what about the banks that are willing to exchange crypto for "hard currency," "know your customer" law, etc. The juice ain't worth the squeeze, that's why.

Clearly, we're all just wasting our time trying to talk to OP. The thread title and his first post asks a question he has no interest in hearing the answer to. Basically, he's an American who is upset he can't play on Stars, and he ignores any facts that get in the way of his argument; no amount of logic or reason will sway him for his view that Stars needs USA#1 back right now and are foolish to not jump back in immediately. This thread isn't about discussion for him, it's about telling everyone what Stars should do, because it's what he wants.

Part of his latest post is a great example of ignoring facts:

Putting aside whether crypto violates UIGEA, this completely ignores the facts that:

1) WPN wasn't using crypto during "Black Friday", so that had nothing to do with why they were not shut down then, or for a number of years afterward.
2) WPN still offers "conventional" deposits and withdrawals. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if crypto deposits and cashouts were still a minority of their transactions - not with 2+2ers, but overall. But regardless of whether they're a majority or minority of transactions, the fact that they still process credit card transactions and send out cheques negates his point.