Features
Access to Canadian records of Nazi war criminals
Introduction: Following upon the huge embarrassment caused not only to the Canadian Government, but to Canada as a whole, by the decision to invite a former member of a Ukrainian Waffen SS unit into the House of Commons where he was applauded as a “war hero,” we asked David Matas, renowned lawyer and expert on the issue of Nazi war criminals who were allowed into Canada following World War II, to write a piece providing an analysis how Canada has failed so badly, not only to prevent Nazis and individuals who cooperated with the Nazi regime, to enter Canada, but also to continually refuse to identify who those individuals were. Following is David Matas’s piece:
Getting access to Canadian Nazi war criminal records has to date been nearly impossible. Efforts to obtain access to relevant files and documents have been constantly frustrated and gone nowhere. The record is this.
On January 12, 2022, B’nai Brith Canada put in a request to Library and Archives Canada for Part II of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals. Part I was public in 1986 when the Commission reported. Part II was confidential.
Part II contained, according to Part I, 822 opinions on individual cases. The Commission recommended that the Government give “urgent attention” to investigating 20 files of alleged Nazi war criminals who might still be living in Canada. The report also recommended further investigation of 218 other possible Nazi war criminals living in Canada.
What happened to the 20 cases which were recommended for urgent attention and the further 218 which were recommended for further investigation? We have no idea. We know that there some cases which went to Court and we have the Court records of those cases. But which of these were part of the 20 or 218, if any, were not disclosed.
As of today, Library and Archives Canada, one year and ten months later, has not responded to the request for Part II, other than to acknowledge receipt and assign the request a file number. B’nai Brith Canada complained on December 5, 2022 to the Office of the Information Commissioner asking the Commissioner to issue an order setting a deadline for Library and Archives Canada to provide B’nai Brith with a copy of the Part II Report. That complaint, as of today, has not been decided.
Also on January 12, 2022, B’nai Brith Canada put in a request to Library and Archives Canada for records relating to investigations of alleged Nazi war criminals of the War Crimes Unit of the Department of Justice and the RCMP. Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Eighth Annual Report 2004-2005 stated that, since beginning this work, the Department of Justice had opened and examined over 1,800 files. Who are these people? What was the result of the investigations in these cases?
With that request too, Library and Archives Canada has not responded, other than to acknowledge receipt and assign the request a file number. B’nai Brith Canada complained as well on December 5, 2022 to the Office of the Information Commissioner asking the Commissioner to issue an order setting a deadline for Library and Archives Canada to provide B’nai Brith with copies of the war crimes records. That complaint, as of today, has, like the other complaint, not been decided.
B’nai Brith Canada on March 6, 2023 asked for an unredacted copy of Library and Archives Canada the September, 1986 report prepared by Alti Rodal titled “Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical and Policy Setting from the 1940s to the Present” prepared for the
Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals. Justice Jules Deschênes who headed the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals recommended release of the report in its entirety. He wrote: “This substantial study no doubt constitutes an outstanding contribution to the knowledge of this particular question and deserves wide distribution.”
Library and Archives Canada provided B’nai Brith Canada on July 5th 2023 a redacted copy of the report, albeit with fewer redactions than there were at the time of the original release of the report. B’nai Brith Canada complained to the Office of the Information Commissioner within 30 days of the refusal to release the unredacted report. That complaint remains undecided.
The 2000 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Stockholm Declaration commits the signatories to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the opening of archives in order to ensure that all documents bearing on the Holocaust are available to researchers.” Canada joined the Alliance in 2009.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Monitoring Access to Archives Project recommended in 2017 that governmental archival institutions “release Holocaust related records, irrespective of any personal identifying information or national security classifications”.
The US Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998 created an interagency war criminals records working group to locate, identify, inventory for declassification and make public all classified Nazi war criminal records. The records subject to the Act include records of the assets of persecuted persons. The Act kept existing exemptions to disclosure in general laws, but required that they be strictly defined, with a presumption against the exemptions.
In addition to general requirements of strict definition and presumption against the exemptions, some of the exemptions were themselves redefined to limit their scope. The exemption from disclosure in favour of privacy is redrafted to become an exemption where there would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. The exemption in favour of national security interests is redrafted to become an exemption where disclosure “would clearly and demonstrably damage the national security interests of the United States”. The exemptions in favour foreign relations and diplomatic activities is redrafted to become an exemption where disclosure “would clearly and demonstrably damage” foreign relations or diplomatic activities. The exemption in favour of emergency preparedness plans is redrafted to become an exemption for information that “would seriously and demonstrably impair” those plans.
The records which were disclosed as a result of US Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act give us an insight into why the documents were withheld. One set of documents showed that the US Government had a lot more detailed knowledge of the Holocaust while it was happening. Keeping this information confidential and not acting on it at the time, whether or not it fits arguably within any of the exemptions, does make the US government of the time look bad. There is presumably similar information in currently withheld documentation of other governments.
A second set of documents initially withheld and then disclosed through the US legislation was documents showing that the Government was providing haven for those complicit in Nazi war crimes because of their potential to assist the US in the Cold War. Again this sort of information now withheld may well be found in other archives.
A third set of documents initially withheld and then disclosed because of the legislation were documents which showed the initial unwillingness to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, and the argumentation both for and against within the government. This argumentation we know has been replicated elsewhere.
A fourth set of documents not yet fully available relates to the effectiveness and operational difficulties of Nazi war crimes prosecution efforts once those efforts got going. In Canada, there was a split between the investigation and prosecution efforts, with investigations allocated to the national police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and prosecution allocated to the Department of Justice. This fragmentation caused a sequence of operational difficulties about which we now have only partial knowledge.
There was also in Canada internal feuding within the Nazi war crimes Justice department unit, arguments whether the unit was too slow and cautious or overly energetic in the pursuit of their efforts. The documents we have now provide only a glimpse of this feuding.
A sixth set of documents not now completely disclosed is efforts of Nazi war crimes prosecution units that were established to obtain access to relevant documents in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We know that there was a good deal of difficulty in getting that access and that eventually international agreements were negotiated that allowed foreign war crimes units direct access to those archives rather than working through local archivists. Again, this is a story which could be fully told only with release of all relevant documents.
A seventh difficulty is the inclination of archivists, government officials and Parliamentarians to address the difficulties in access to documentation all at once. Yet, attempting to do everything before one does anything is a recipe for doing nothing. Each request is particular, not least in the archival access issues it presents. An effort to resolve all these myriad issues in one fell swoop goes nowhere.
We can see in several countries self-exoneration and blame shifting as a form of Holocaust distortion. Everywhere the Nazis went they relied on local collaboration to identify, locate, detain and murder the Jewish population. What we see now in several countries is an effort to pretend that the locals were innocent, that the only perpetrators were the invading Nazis.
This whitewashing is not confined to the countries invaded. It is an attitude held within the populations which have emigrated from the invaded countries. This attitude had generated opposition to the effort to bring Nazi war criminals to justice and now generates opposition to disclosure of archives about those efforts.
Canadian privacy law allows for the lapse of the right to privacy twenty years after death. However, in the case of Nazi war criminal files, since the names of those, other than those whose cases have gone to court, are not known, neither is their dates of death. While the dates of death are not known to outsiders, they are either known or knowable to archivists.
The situation justifies these recommendations:
1) Obstacles to access to Nazi war criminal records stem from legislation which is general in nature. There needs to be legislation which is specific to Holocaust records and which provides an exception to these general requirements. The legislation needs to encompass Holocaust related archives concerning both perpetrators and victims.
2) National archives need to establish and maintain separate Holocaust records within their general collections.
3) Insofar as there is discretion in current legislation to allow for exceptions to prohibitions to access, that discretion should be exercised in favour of access to Holocaust related records, including Nazi war crimes records.
4) Parliament can obtain documents from Governments which the public can not obtain. Parliament should exercise that power to obtain Holocaust related records.
5) The public interest in access to Nazi war criminal files should prevail over the right to be forgotten.
6) There needs to be active review of Nazi war criminal files both to make publicly available the files where the dates of death are known and the fixed periods after dates of death in privacy legislation have passed, and to determine whether any of those to whom the files relate are still alive or, if dead, the dates of death, where the deaths or dates of death are not known.
Canada, as a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is committed to Holocaust remembrance. To remember the Holocaust, we must remember the victims. We must also not forget their murderers. While the murderers are alive, that means bringing them to justice. Once they are gone, it means providing public access to the record of their atrocities.
During the Holocaust, the murderers were in Europe. After the Holocaust, the murderers scattered around the world to escape justice. Thousands came to Canada. Howard Margolian, a historian with the War Crimes Unit with the Department of Justice, in his book Unauthorized Entry, estimated that 2,000 Nazi war criminals and collaborators entered Canada after World War II.
It is understandable that files about individuals who are still alive are not made accessible to the public unless there is legal action. But once the individual has died, there is no reason why the file could not be made public, no matter what the state of the evidence about the individual. Not doing so amounts to covering up the haven Canada has given to those complicit in Nazi war crimes with a blanket of secrecy.
Philosopher George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Yet, we can not remember a past which remains hidden from us. To remember the past we must know the past. Only through public access to Holocaust archives can we learn lessons from those archives.
Learning lessons from the Holocaust is a legacy we can create for the victims, creating meaning from the senseless death of innocents. To learn those lessons, we need access to the archives which can convey them.
The effort at understanding, of learning the lessons from the Holocaust must never stop. For that history to be written, the files of those against whom there is compelling evidence of complicity in Nazi war crimes and who are now dead must be made public.
We have a duty to the victims, not just to remember that they died, but why they died, how they died. The picture of memory we paint must be real and complete. That picture must include the murderers.
Because we will soon be at a stage where the memory of the Holocaust conveyed by survivors will no longer be with us, access to Holocaust archives looms in importance for keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive. Access to Holocaust archives should be a matter of priority to Governments, Parliaments and archival collections.
David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer and senior honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada
Features
Sheldon Adelson’s Campaign Against Online Gambling Regulation
Sheldon Adelson, the late billionaire casino magnate and founder of Las Vegas Sands Corporation, was a towering figure in the gambling industry and a polarizing force in the debate over online gambling regulation in the United States.
While many casino operators saw the internet as a new frontier for profit, Adelson waged a relentless campaign to block its legalization, citing moral, social, and business concerns.
His efforts, primarily channeled through the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, left a lasting impact on the regulatory landscape.
Let’s explore Adelson’s motivations, strategies, and the role of initiatives like Jackpot Sounds, a platform aggregating big online casino wins, in the broader context of the online gambling debate.
Jackpot Sounds: Celebrating Big Wins Amid the Debate
A 2023 report estimated that online gambling generated $5.7 billion in revenue in the U.S., a figure amplified by spotlighting success stories. It caused the rise of gamblers’ desire to address the big win replays. Platforms like Jackpot Sounds emerged, highlighting and aggregating big win replays as the enticement of online gambling.
The platform showcases real-time highlights of significant payouts, from slot machine jackpots to poker tournament victories, fostering community among online gamblers.
Jackpot Sounds captures the excitement of virtual jackpots, offering players a way to relive thrilling moments.
By curating content that celebrates high-stakes wins, Jackpot Sounds underscores the appeal that Adelson sought to suppress.
But what preceded this success of online gambling in the USA? How is Sheldon Adelson’s name related? While Adelson argued that such accessibility endangered society, Jackpot Sounds reflects the industry’s resilience and the public’s enthusiasm for digital gaming.
The Rise of Sheldon Adelson and His Casino Empire
Born on August 4, 1933, in Boston, Massachusetts, Sheldon Adelson grew up in modest circumstances.
By 12, he sold newspapers, showcasing an entrepreneurial spirit that defined his career. By 1995, Adelson had amassed wealth through ventures like the Comdex trade show, which he sold for $860 million.
He then focused on the casino industry, founding Las Vegas Sands Corporation. By 2019, his net worth was estimated at $35 billion, making him one of the world’s wealthiest individuals. His flagship properties, including The Venetian Las Vegas and Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, solidified his status as a global casino titan.
Adelson’s influence extended beyond business. A major Republican Party donor, he contributed over $90 million to political campaigns in 2012 alone, earning the moniker “kingmaker.”
His financial clout gave him significant leverage in Washington, D.C., which he later wielded in his fight against online gambling.
Adelson’s Stance on Online Gambling
Adelson’s opposition to online gambling emerged publicly in 2013, when he declared his intent to block its legalization in the U.S. Unlike competitors like Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts, who embraced online platforms, Adelson argued that internet gambling posed unique risks. In a June 2013 Forbes article, he claimed it could lead to financial ruin for vulnerable individuals, including those with student debt.
He also expressed concerns about underage access and the potential for money laundering, calling online gambling “a danger to society.”
Critics, however, pointed to a potential conflict of interest. Adelson’s brick-and-mortar casinos thrived on in-person gambling, and online platforms threatened to divert revenue.
A 2001 Las Vegas Sun article revealed that Adelson had once supported online poker, suggesting his later opposition might have been strategic. By 2014, he was unequivocal, stating, “I am willing to spend whatever it takes” to stop online gambling.
The Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling
In January 2014, Adelson launched the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling (CSIG), a lobbying group designed to rally support for a federal ban on online gambling.
Headed by prominent figures like former New York Governor George Pataki, former Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, CSIG aimed to influence lawmakers and the public.
The coalition’s website warned that online gambling “crosses the line of responsible gaming” by bringing casinos into “living rooms and smartphones.”
CSIG employed aggressive tactics, including:
- Media Campaigns: In February 2014, CSIG released an ad titled “Don’t Let the Games Begin,” claiming online gambling could fund terrorism and harm families.
- Lobbying Efforts: By 2015, CSIG had enlisted dozens of lobbyists, including former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, to push for legislation.
- Political Alliances: Adelson secured support from governors like Rick Scott of Florida, who received $750,000 in campaign contributions from Adelson between 2010 and 2014.
The coalition’s efforts gained traction. In March 2014, 16 state attorneys general co-signed a letter to Congress urging a ban on online gaming. CSIG also influenced the American Gaming Association, which dropped its support for online gambling in 2014 after pressure from Adelson.
Legislative Push: The Restoration of America’s Wire Act
Adelson’s campaign focused on reinstating a broad interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibited interstate wagering.
In 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had issued an opinion stating the Wire Act applied only to sports betting, opening the door for states like New Jersey, Delaware, and Nevada to legalize online gambling. Adelson sought to reverse this.
On March 26, 2014, Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Jason Chaffetz introduced the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA), a bill backed by Adelson to ban most forms of online gambling.
The legislation gained co-sponsors, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Marco Rubio, and was reintroduced in February 2015. Adelson met House Speaker John Boehner in January 2015 to push RAWA, leveraging his $13.2 million in donations to Republican causes in 2014.
Despite these efforts, RAWA faced opposition from a coalition of casino operators, poker players, and states’ rights advocates.
By 2016, the bill had stalled in Congress, unable to overcome resistance from figures like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who legalized online gambling in his state in 2013.
Adelson’s Influence on the Department of Justice
Adelson’s campaign reached a high point in 2018, when the DOJ revisited its 2011 Wire Act opinion.
On November 2, 2018, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a new memo, released publicly on January 14, 2019, declaring that the Wire Act applied to all forms of online gambling, not just sports betting.
This reversal threatened the legal frameworks in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which had generated $200 million in tax revenue from online gambling by 2017.
The timing raised suspicions. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, donated $113 million to Republican causes in 2016, including $20 million to Donald Trump’s campaign. In January 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who received campaign support from Adelson, expressed shock at the 2011 opinion and vowed to review it.
A February 2017 memo from former CSIG lobbyist Charles Cooper mirrored the DOJ’s 2018 arguments, prompting speculation of Adelson’s influence. In 2019, New Jersey and Pennsylvania attorneys general filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking evidence of lobbying by CSIG and Adelson.
Resistance and Industry Pushback
Adelson’s efforts faced significant opposition. Caesars, MGM, and the American Gaming Association formed the Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection (C4COP) in February 2014 to counter CSIG’s narrative.
Led by former Representative Mary Bono and former Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley, C4COP argued that regulation, not prohibition, ensured consumer safety. A January 2014 poll by North Star Opinion Research, commissioned by C4COP, found that 74% of voters favored state-by-state legalization over a federal ban.
The Poker Players Alliance also mobilized, urging members to flood lawmakers’ social media with pro-gambling messages.
By 2015, states like Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware had generated $2 billion in online gambling revenue, bolstering arguments for regulation. Critics like Jan Jones Blackhurst of Caesars called Adelson’s approach “counterproductive,” accusing him of fostering an unregulated black market.
Adelson’s Legacy and Ongoing Impact
Sheldon Adelson passed away on January 11, 2021, at the age of 87, but his campaign against online gambling left a complex legacy. While RAWA never passed, the 2018 DOJ memo slowed the expansion of online gambling, creating uncertainty for operators.
By 2023, only seven states had fully legalized online casino gaming, compared to 38 for sports betting, partly due to Adelson’s influence.
However, the industry continued to grow. A 2024 report projected U.S. online gambling revenue to reach $7.6 billion by 2026.
Adelson’s moral arguments resonated with some lawmakers, but critics viewed his campaign as defending his land-based empire. As Mary Bono noted in 2014, “It’s impossible to stand in the way of the internet.”
Conclusion
Sheldon Adelson’s battle against online gambling, spearheaded by the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, was a high-stakes effort to shape the industry’s future. From launching CSIG in 2014 to influencing the DOJ in 2018, Adelson used his wealth and political connections to advocate for a federal ban.
Yet, platforms like Jackpot Sounds highlight the enduring appeal of online gambling, celebrating wins that Adelson sought to curtail. While he delayed regulation in some areas, the momentum for legalization persisted, reflecting the challenges of containing a digital revolution.
Adelson’s story is a testament to the power—and limits—of influence in a rapidly changing world.
Features
How To Earn Money with Cryptocurrency From Home
If you’re looking for new ways to make money from home, there’s a modern way to do it. Cryptocurrency has opened up new opportunities for making money online. With the right approach, you can generate income without leaving your house. Whether you want to invest, trade, or earn through other methods, there are various ways to profit from digital currencies. For instance, Canadian poker players take advantage of crypto-friendly platforms to play from home and cash out in Bitcoin or other digital currencies. These platforms provide customers various benefits and attractions that make online gambling a great way to earn money from home, while also having fun.
Understanding Cryptocurrency
Before diving into ways to make money, it is important to understand what cryptocurrency is. It is a digital form of money that operates on blockchain technology.
Unlike traditional currencies, it is decentralized and not controlled by any government or central bank. The most well-known cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, but there are thousands of others, including Ethereum, Litecoin, and Solana, and even plenty of meme coins to choose from.
Trading Cryptocurrency
One of the most popular ways to earn money with cryptocurrency is through trading. This involves buying and selling digital coins to take advantage of price changes.
Day Trading
Day trading is for those who want to make quick profits by buying and selling cryptocurrencies within the same day. It requires monitoring price charts and market trends. Since prices can be volatile, traders must act quickly to capitalize on short-term price movements.
Swing Trading
Unlike day trading, swing trading focuses on medium-term price trends. Traders hold onto their assets for days or even weeks, waiting for a better price before selling. This method requires patience and a good understanding of market trends.
Holding
HODLing is a long-term investment strategy. Investors buy cryptocurrencies and keep them for an extended period, expecting the value to rise over time. This method is ideal for those who believe in the long-term potential of digital currencies and prefer a hands-off approach.
Earning Through Staking
Staking allows cryptocurrency holders to earn passive income by participating in the network of a blockchain. By holding certain cryptocurrencies in digital wallets, users help validate transactions and secure the network. In return, they receive rewards in the form of additional coins. Some popular staking coins include Ethereum, Cardano, and Polkadot.
Mining Cryptocurrency
Mining is another way to generate income from home. It involves using computer power to validate transactions and add new blocks to the blockchain. Miners are rewarded with cryptocurrency for their efforts.
While Bitcoin mining requires expensive equipment and high electricity costs, other cryptocurrencies like Litecoin and Monero can still be mined using regular computers. Some mining pools allow individuals to combine their computing power with others to increase their chances of earning rewards.
Earning Through Airdrops and Forks
Airdrops occur when cryptocurrency projects distribute free tokens to wallet holders as part of a promotion. These giveaways help new projects attract attention. To receive airdrops, users often need to hold a specific cryptocurrency or complete simple tasks like signing up for a newsletter or following a project on social media.
Forks happen when a blockchain splits into two. If you hold a cryptocurrency that undergoes a fork, you may receive new coins based on the amount you already own. This provides an opportunity to make money without additional investment.
Participating in Play-to-Earn Games
The rise of blockchain gaming has created new opportunities for earning cryptocurrency from home, while also having a little fun. Some online games reward players with digital assets for completing tasks, winning battles, or progressing through levels. These assets can be sold or traded for real money.
Many play-to-earn games operate using NFTs, which allow players to own and trade in-game items. Popular games in this space include Axie Infinity, The Sandbox, and Gods Unchained.
Creating and Selling NFTs
Non-fungible tokens have created new earning possibilities for digital artists, musicians, and content creators. NFTs are unique digital assets stored on the blockchain, representing ownership of artwork, music, videos, and virtual collectibles.
Artists can create NFTs and sell them on marketplaces making them a great way to raise your income from home. Some NFTs have sold for thousands or even millions of dollars, making this a profitable option for those with creative skills.
Earning Crypto Through Affiliate Programs
Affiliate programs allow individuals to earn cryptocurrency by promoting products and services. Many crypto exchanges, wallets, and investment platforms offer referral programs where users receive rewards for bringing in new customers.
By sharing referral links on social media, blogs, or YouTube channels, users can generate a steady income stream. The more people who sign up using their link, the more they earn.
Crypto Lending and Yield Farming
Crypto lending allows investors to earn interest by lending their digital assets to others, of course, you will need to have a crypto to lend in the first place to make money through this method.
Yield farming is another way to earn passive income. It involves providing liquidity to decentralized finance platforms and earning rewards in return. This method can be profitable but carries risks, including market fluctuations and smart contract vulnerabilities.
Freelancing for Crypto Payments
Many online platforms and businesses pay freelancers in cryptocurrency for their work. Writers, developers, graphic designers, and marketers can find gigs that offer digital currency as payment.
There are plenty of websites out there that can help connect freelancers with clients who prefer paying in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
By offering services in exchange for cryptocurrency, freelancers can avoid traditional banking fees and receive payments faster.
Features
Understanding different payment methods in online casinos
Payment methods have been a hot topic of conversation in the casino gaming world since the inception of online casinos. Before the internet changed the entire fabric of this industry, there were a relatively small number of ways to deposit money in a casino. Many land-based casinos have ATMs, others accept cheque payments as withdrawals and deposits, and others pay out larger amounts in cash or bank transfers.
Of course, Visa and Mastercard have been widely accepted in land-based and digital casinos for decades. But compared to the way the market is now, with a whole range of e-wallets and digital payment options, the number of possibilities has soared.
Today, we’ll review the popular payment methods, some of which experts believe could disrupt the industry, and other options that have started to connect with casino gaming audiences in Canada and further afield.
Prepayment vouchers
In the modern casino market, digital wallets and internet-based payment services have become dominant forces in casino gaming. Prepayment services have exploded in popularity over the last 25 years, and services and platforms such as Neosurf have been able to carve out a slice of this market for themselves.
As the Canadian market expands, prepayment options such as Skrill and Paysafecard have emerged as deposit options for gamers looking to deposit first and pay later. Neosurf is widely used in casino gaming, offering e-wallet and account functionality. Knowing where you can find the best Neosurf casinos is a good move, as dozens of highly reputable providers provide a facility for Neosurf customers to play casino games.
However, in a vast and competitive casino gaming market, casinos that simply focus on one type of payment method face an uphill challenge in an industry where scope of choice is becoming more of a selling point.
E-wallet payment options
While PayPal and Neteller might have been the first companies to highlight the potential for e-wallets to exist as payment methods in the online casino business, they have morphed into an entirely different market to that of 20 years ago.
Options such as Apple Pay and Google Pay have surged in popularity. While they work similarly to PayPal and Neteller, for the tens of millions of people who have added their debit card to their phone wallet, it’s a simple case of selecting either Apple Pay, Android or Google Pay, depending on the type of mobile device you use. Your card information syncs immediately to the site, and you can deposit within seconds.
It’s faster than entering your card details. It integrates the biometric face ID or your passcode, depending on which one you use on your mobile device. If you experience any issues, you can immediately freeze your Apple Pay card, meaning nobody can withdraw any funds.
Traditional methods
Millions of online casino gamers opt for traditional payment options. We’ve touched on some of these, including PayPal and Visa. However, despite the rise of e-wallet payment options and more contemporary types of payments such as cryptocurrency, there’s still a vast, dominant market for Visa and Mastercard – which are two of the oldest and most traditional payment methods still available in the casino gaming industry, both online and land-based.
Of all the key tips to use the internet safely, several high-profile anti-fraud campaigns focus on traditional payment options. While entering your card details, CVV number and expiry date into the wrong site can be disastrous, many stopgaps are in place, including suspicious transaction flagging from both Visa and your bank, which can stop criminals dead in their tracks.
That said, handing out such information is still not a good idea. This is why you should always research a casino before you use it. Once you ensure they have a watertight security system and have not been subjected to a data breach, you can deposit your funds with greater confidence. It also pays to keep updated with the latest cybersecurity news, including sophisticated phish-free phishing attacks, one of the latest emerging threats.
The future of payment methods in online casino gaming
Cryptocurrency and blockchain systems are the latest methods that have become popular in the online casino world, although they might not have the visibility or the same level of mass adoption that we have seen with other payment options over the last few years.
It does feel like there’s room for Bitcoin and altcoins to become players in the future. Not only do they have the appeal to branch into a broader market, but by utilizing and leveraging the power of the blockchain, users can deposit and withdraw their funds directly to their crypto wallet without having to enter their card details.
In the event of a cyberattack, a cryptocurrency casino’s main wallet is often targeted for funds, but criminals rarely try to extract databases of information.
The added convenience and potential security could be the two main pillars that bring cryptocurrency alongside some payment systems that have been present in the casino gaming world for decades. There are still other variables to consider here – most crucially, regulation. However, if these obstacles can be overcome, crypto could spearhead the growth of online casinos into the 2030s.
Final thoughts
You could find platforms with two dozen payment options, depending on the casino site you use. Many of the large providers offer as many payment options as possible. Other sites, such as niche casinos that don’t have the same market share, will only focus on cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP.
However, regardless of the payment options you encounter in an online casino, they will often fall into three categories: e-wallets, traditional payment systems or niche digital-specific payment options, such as cryptocurrency. We wouldn’t recommend seeking the niche options if you do not understand how they work.
Understand the mechanics of these payment systems and what drives the market. Once you know the payment option, whether cryptocurrency or Apple Pay, you can test the waters and experience how it works in the broader online casino gaming industry.