Crypto Casino Verification: Modular KYC & AML System

We design and develop full-cycle blockchain solutions: from smart contract architecture to launching DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces and crypto exchanges. Security audits, tokenomics, integration with existing infrastructure.
Showing 1 of 1All 1305 services
Crypto Casino Verification: Modular KYC & AML System
Medium
~3-5 days
Frequently Asked Questions

Blockchain Development Services

Blockchain Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1349
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1247
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    949
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1183
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    642
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    921

Crypto Casino Player Verification System: Modular Architecture

Designing a verification system for a crypto casino requires balancing Web3 anonymity with regulatory demands. Crypto casinos face dual pressure: users value privacy, while licensing bodies and payment partners require KYC, AML, and age verification. Our approach is a modular tiered system that adapts to the license and region. Our team has over 8 years of experience in crypto compliance and has delivered 30+ turnkey KYC solutions for crypto projects, including casinos and exchanges.

How Tiered Verification Works — Building the Verification System

Not all players require the same level of scrutiny. A tiered approach is the standard for gambling:

Level Limit Requirements Verification Time
Tier 0 Up to $500/month Email + wallet + auto AML Instant
Tier 1 Up to $5,000/month Name, date of birth, country 1–2 min
Tier 2 Up to $50,000/month Government ID + liveness 5–10 min
Tier 3 > $50,000/month Source of Funds, PEP 1–2 days

Tier 0 (minimal): email, wallet connection, and automatic AML address screening via Chainalysis or Elliptic. No documents, instant response.

Tier 1 (basic): name, date of birth, country of residence. Automatic sanctions list check. Account confirmation via email or SMS.

Tier 2 (extended): government ID (passport, driver's license), liveness check, proof of address. We use Sumsub, Onfido, or equivalent.

Tier 3 (enhanced due diligence): Source of Funds, Source of Wealth, extended PEP/Sanctions check, manual review by a compliance officer.

Example of level configurationLimits and requirements for each tier are set in the configuration. For example, Tier 0 deposit limit is 0.1 BTC/month, Tier 1 is 1 BTC. Levels are automatically upgraded when the limit is reached.

Which AML Tools to Use?

For casinos, it is critical: funds from darknet markets or stolen funds — direct liability for the platform. Provider comparison:

Provider Monitoring Type Speed Customization
Chainalysis KYT On-chain transactions Real-time High
Elliptic On-chain + off-chain Real-time Medium
OFAC Parser Static lists Daily Full

According to Chainalysis KYT documentation, risk categories include darknet market, stolen funds, ransomware, sanctions. For such addresses — reject deposit and freeze account. Grey zone (gambling, P2P exchange, mixing) requires manual review. We additionally check wallet addresses against the OFAC SDN List via Chainalysis or our own parser — the list is updated daily.

Sumsub processes requests 3 times faster than manual verification, and Chainalysis KYT detects suspicious transactions with 95% higher accuracy than static OFAC screening. Our clients save up to 60% on verification costs compared to manual processes. A typical project starts at $20,000 and saves $30,000–$100,000 annually.

Chainalysis KYT (Know Your Transaction) Integration

async function screenAddress(address: string, asset: string): Promise<RiskScore> {
  const response = await chainalysisClient.post('/v1/users', {
    userId: address,
  });
  
  const transferResponse = await chainalysisClient.post('/v1/transfers', {
    network: asset,
    asset: asset,
    transferReference: address,
    direction: 'received',
  });
  
  return {
    riskScore: transferResponse.data.riskScore,
    cluster: transferResponse.data.cluster?.name,
    category: transferResponse.data.cluster?.category,
  };
}

How to Integrate a KYC Provider?

Sumsub — Standard Choice for Gambling

Sumsub provides WebSDK for an embedded flow. Token generation on the backend:

async function getSumsubToken(applicantId: string): Promise<string> {
  const timestamp = Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000);
  const method = 'POST';
  const url = `/resources/accessTokens?userId=${applicantId}&levelName=basic-kyc-level`;
  
  const signature = crypto
    .createHmac('sha256', SUMSUB_SECRET_KEY)
    .update(timestamp + method + url)
    .digest('hex');

  const response = await axios.post(
    `https://api.sumsub.com${url}`,
    {},
    {
      headers: {
        'X-App-Token': SUMSUB_APP_TOKEN,
        'X-App-Access-Sig': signature,
        'X-App-Access-Ts': timestamp,
      }
    }
  );
  
  return response.data.token;
}
// Frontend initialization
import SumsubWebSdk from "@sumsub/websdk";

const sdk = SumsubWebSdk.init(
  accessToken,
  () => refreshToken(),
  {
    lang: "en",
    onMessage: (type, payload) => {
      if (type === "idCheck.onApplicantStatusChanged") {
        if (payload.reviewResult?.reviewAnswer === "GREEN") {
          handleKYCApproved(payload.applicantId);
        }
      }
    },
    onError: (error) => console.error("Sumsub error:", error),
  }
);

sdk.launch("#sumsub-container");

An important point is verifying the webhook signature to avoid accepting fake callbacks:

function verifySumsubWebhook(req: Request): boolean {
  const signature = req.headers['x-payload-digest'];
  const secret = process.env.SUMSUB_WEBHOOK_SECRET;
  
  const expectedSignature = crypto
    .createHmac('sha256', secret)
    .update(req.rawBody)
    .digest('hex');
    
  return crypto.timingSafeEqual(
    Buffer.from(signature),
    Buffer.from(expectedSignature)
  );
}

async function handleSumsubWebhook(payload: SumsubWebhookPayload) {
  const { applicantId, reviewResult, type } = payload;
  
  if (type === "applicantReviewed") {
    if (reviewResult.reviewAnswer === "GREEN") {
      await db.updateUserKYCStatus(applicantId, "APPROVED", reviewResult.reviewRejectType);
      await updateUserTier(applicantId);
    } else if (reviewResult.reviewAnswer === "RED") {
      await db.updateUserKYCStatus(applicantId, "REJECTED", reviewResult.moderationComment);
      await notifyUser(applicantId, "kyc_rejected");
    }
  }
}

Age Verification Without Documents

For markets where documentary KYC is unacceptable, we use Yoti Age Verification. The user receives a signed age token; the casino only sees "over 18". AgeID (UK standard) follows a similar approach. Integration via OAuth 2.0: Yoti acts as identity provider.

Geo-blocking and IP Verification

KYC does not replace geo-blocking. Mandatory checks:

async function checkPlayerEligibility(ip: string, walletAddress: string): Promise<EligibilityResult> {
  const geoResult = await maxmindClient.country(ip);
  const country = geoResult.country.isoCode;
  
  if (BLOCKED_COUNTRIES.includes(country)) {
    return { allowed: false, reason: 'geo_blocked', country };
  }
  
  const ipRisk = await ipqualityscore.check(ip);
  if (ipRisk.vpn || ipRisk.proxy || ipRisk.tor) {
    return { allowed: false, reason: 'vpn_detected' };
  }
  
  return { allowed: true, country };
}

Blocked country lists are determined by the license: Curacao, Malta, Estonia — each with its own list of restricted jurisdictions.

Why Responsible Gambling is Necessary?

Licensed casinos must implement responsible gambling features:

  • Self-exclusion (block from 1 day to permanent)
  • Deposit limits (daily/weekly/monthly — decrease instantly, increase after cooling-off 24–72 hours)
  • Reality check (notification of time and losses)
  • Cooling-off period (temporary pause)

These measures not only comply with regulatory requirements but also reduce risks of negative user experience. Automating responsible gambling is a mandatory compliance element.

Process

  1. Analysis: study license requirements and select providers.
  2. Design: KYC/AML architecture, flow diagrams.
  3. Integration: connect Sumsub, Chainalysis, MaxMind, Yoti.
  4. Testing: regression and load tests.
  5. Deployment and training of the compliance team.

Timelines

Component Timeline
KYC tier system + Sumsub 2–3 weeks
AML screening + webhook 1–2 weeks
Geo-blocking + IP 1 week
Responsible gambling 1–2 weeks
Admin dashboard 1–2 weeks

A full compliance system — 6–10 weeks. Automation savings reach 60% compared to manual verification. Cost is calculated individually based on the set of providers and integration complexity.

What's Included in the Work

  • Architectural documentation
  • Provider integration (Sumsub, Chainalysis, Yoti, MaxMind)
  • Smart contract writing (if needed)
  • Load testing
  • Compliance team training
  • Launch support

Get an estimate for your project — contact us. We will help select providers and optimize your budget. With 8+ years of experience and 30+ delivered projects, we guarantee a compliant and efficient KYC system. Order a turnkey verification system — discuss details with our engineers.

Digital Identity on Blockchain: DID, SBT, and Verifiable Credentials

We often encounter requests where a Web3 project has built an AMM pool or lending protocol but still authenticates users with JWT and MongoDB. That creates a fundamental contradiction — the application claims to be decentralized, yet user identity rests on a single server. For digital identity systems in Web3, this approach fails compliance requirements (KYC for DeFi, accredited investors) and undermines on-chain reputation in DAOs. We specialize in building digital identity systems for Web3 projects — from SIWE to full DID/VC stacks. Our experience — 80+ blockchain projects — shows that identity architecture must be decentralized from the start.

How does Sign-In with Ethereum solve authentication?

EIP-4361 (SIWE) removes login/password entirely. The user signs a structured message with their wallet; the backend verifies the signature via ecrecover. No credential leaks, no password hashing.

Implementation: siwe library (JS/TS) on the frontend, SiweMessage.verify() on the backend. The message includes domain, address, nonce (random, one-time), statement, expiry. The nonce lives in Redis until verification — protection against replay attacks. Today, SIWE is used by over 80 projects in the top 100 DeFi.

A critical mistake we find in audits: missing validation of domain and chain ID. If the backend does not check message.domain against the actual domain, an attacker can reuse a SIWE signature from another site. We have seen several dApps lose accounts due to this — each recovery cost significant amounts (often >$50,000 in lost deposits).

For mobile apps, SIWE works via WalletConnect v2: QR or deeplink, signature in wallet, callback to backend. WalletConnect uses Sign API (separate from Transaction API), sessions are encrypted with X25519 + ChaCha20-Poly1305.

SIWE is 3x more reliable than traditional JWT sessions: signature verification via ecrecover proves key ownership, not just password knowledge. Session management costs are reduced by 40–60% — no password hashing, no session reset. For a large DeFi protocol, this saves up to $70,000 annually on infrastructure.

What is DID and which method to choose?

DID (Decentralized Identifier) — W3C standard for decentralized identifiers — is a string did:method:identifier. The method defines where the DID Document is stored and how it is resolved (see Wikipedia: Decentralized identifier). The main methods we use in production:

Method Storage Location Gas Cost Use Case
did:ethr EthereumDIDRegistry (ERC-1056) ~60,000 gas on write DeFi, DAO — key rotation
did:key Deterministically derived from pubkey Gasless Ephemeral identity, test
did:web HTTPS (/.well-known/did.json) Gasless Enterprise (DNS trust)
did:ion Bitcoin Layer 2 (Sidetree) ~5,000 gas Long-term, high security

For most DeFi projects, did:ethr or did:key suffice. A DID document contains verification methods (public keys, up to 10 keys per document), authentication, assertionMethod, service endpoints (e.g., link to KYC service). We ensure the chosen method is compatible with target chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) and avoids interface redesign.

Common mistakes when choosing a DID method:

  • Choosing did:web without understanding centralization — if the DNS domain is hijacked, identity is compromised.
  • Ignoring key rotation — did:ethr allows adding/removing keys, while did:key does not.
  • Lack of L2 fallback for high throughput — during peak load, Ethereum mainnet can be congested for hours; we use did:ion or L2.

How does verification work via Verifiable Credentials?

Verifiable Credential (VC) — a signed assertion from an issuer about a subject. W3C format: JSON-LD or JWT. Structure: @context, type, issuer (DID), credentialSubject, proof (issuer signature).

Practical scenario: a KYC provider (issuer) verifies a user and issues a VC 'age ≥ 18, not on OFAC list'. The user stores the VC locally (wallet extension or mobile app). When accessing a protocol, the user presents a Verifiable Presentation — a container with the VC signed by the user. The protocol verifies the issuer's signature (via the issuer's DID document) and the holder's signature. No personal data goes on-chain. The protocol does not store a database of KYC-passed users. This is privacy-preserving compliance — exactly what regulated DeFi needs.

Zero-knowledge proofs for VCs take privacy to another level. Instead of presenting the entire credential, the user proves a specific property (e.g., age ≥ 18) without revealing the value. Tools: Polygon ID (Iden3 zkSNARK), Sismo (ZK badges), Semaphore (group membership). Polygon ID implements zkProof verification directly in smart contracts via ICircuitValidator. Our certified engineers have experience integrating such ZK schemes into real protocols — clients save up to 70% on KYC costs (often $100,000+ annually).

Why are Soulbound Tokens not suitable for mass adoption?

SBTs (EIP-5192, concept by Vitalik Buterin) are non-transferable NFTs. Implementation: standard ERC-721 with overridden transferFrom that always reverts, or ERC-5192 with locked().

Production uses:

  • DAO Governance — Snapshot + SBT for one-person-one-vote. Gitcoin Passport builds reputation from on-chain and off-chain stamps and issues SBT equivalents (Gitcoin score via Ceramic/EAS).
  • Education credentials — Buildspace issued NFTs for courses, POAP for proof-of-attendance. SBTs make them non-transferable — cannot buy someone else's history.
  • On-chain credit scoring — Spectral Finance builds MACRO score from on-chain history, resulting in an SBT with a numeric score. Lending protocols use it for under-collateralized loans.

Key technical limitation: recovery mechanism. Losing access to a wallet means losing all SBTs. Without recovery, mass adoption is impossible. Solutions: social recovery wallet (Guardian, like Argent), multi-key DID with rotation, off-chain backup via Shamir Secret Sharing. We include recovery planning in every SBT project.

Ethereum Attestation Service as a standard identity layer

EAS is deployed on Ethereum mainnet, Optimism, Arbitrum, Base. Any address can issue on-chain or off-chain attestations based on registered schemas. A schema is an ABI-encoded structure. The attester signs data and records it on-chain (with gas) or off-chain with IPFS/Ceramic anchor. Verifiers read via IEAS.getAttestation(uid).

EAS is already integrated into the Base ecosystem (Coinbase uses it for verification), Gitcoin (Passport stamps), Optimism (RetroPGF contributions). It is becoming the de facto standard for on-chain identity layer on L2. Our developers are certified for EAS (experience with 5+ projects). According to EAS documentation, attestations can be revoked, and schemas supportup to 32 fields of arbitrary ABI types.

How can we choose the right identity solution for your project?

  1. Analytics & compliance — map the user journey: who is issuer, verifier, what data is needed, what cannot be stored on-chain under GDPR.
  2. Architecture design — choose between on-chain SBT, EAS, DID/VC stack. Data schema, ZK circuit (if needed).
  3. Implementation — smart contracts (Solidity 0.8.x, Foundry/Hardhat), issuer service (Node.js/Go), holder wallet (ethers.js viem), verifier contract.
  4. Testing & audit — unit tests, integration tests, fuzzing (Echidna), static analysis (Slither). Engage third-party auditor.
  5. Deploy & support — deploy to target networks, monitoring (Tenderly), documentation, team training.

Deliverables

  • Source code of smart contracts (Solidity, open-sourced under MIT)
  • Issuer backend (Node.js/Go) with API for issuing VC/SBT
  • Holder wallet integration (ethers.js viem, RainbowKit, WalletConnect)
  • Verifier contract/script
  • Architecture documentation, deployment runbook
  • 2 months post-deployment support

Timeline Estimates

Phase Duration
SIWE integration (wallet authentication) 2 to 4 weeks
SBT contracts + minting portal 3 to 6 weeks
EAS attestation schema + verification 4 to 8 weeks
Full DID/VC pipeline (issuer + holder + verifier) 3 to 6 months
ZK-based privacy-preserving credentials 5 to 9 months

Cost is calculated individually based on schema complexity, number of chains, and compliance requirements. Contact us to discuss your scenario and get an optimal plan.

Order a digital identity system development — get a consultation with a senior engineer specialized in this field. Also, book a technical audit of your current identity system — we will identify bottlenecks and suggest concrete improvements.