The appearance of crypto methods in an operator's cashier is usually presented as an extension of the payment mix. In practice it is a different settlement mechanic: the roles of the participants change, so does the moment at which a payment becomes final, and so do the requirements for controlling the origin of funds.
Settlement without an acquirer
In a card payment a chain of intermediaries stands between player and operator, holding the risk and allowing the transaction to be reversed. In a blockchain transfer there is no such intermediary, and once confirmed the transaction is irreversible. The chargeback disappears as a class of problem, but the mechanism for correcting mistakes disappears with it: a transfer to the wrong address or on the wrong network cannot be recalled.
Volatility and accounting
The player balance and the operator's internal ledger are normally kept in fiat, so the rate is fixed at the moment of the transaction and the difference between the incoming amount and the payout sits with the operator. Hence the practice of converting receipts immediately, or of working through stablecoins and a provider that takes the exchange-rate risk. Network fees are a separate cost line: they depend on network load rather than on the size of the payment.
Compliance does not get simpler
The pseudonymity of an address does not remove AML obligations. In practice the work comes down to analysing the origin of funds along the transaction chain, screening out addresses from sanctioned and high-risk clusters, and running the same player identification as for a fiat deposit.
Crypto payments remove some costs and add others: the gain is usually in withdrawal speed and method availability, not in a softening of requirements.