How the Score Works
How We Rank Crypto Casinos: Our Methodology
Every operator we rank is scored against the same five checks, read from its own terms and licence register — here's exactly what each check looks for, with one worked example apiece.
Every operator on this site is scored against the same five checks, applied the same way each time, and read from two sources only: the operator's own published terms and its licence register. This page explains exactly what those five checks look for, with one worked example each drawn from the twelve operators we rank.
Bonus size and game count don't factor into this score at all — they're covered elsewhere on the site, but they don't move an operator's position here. This is how we rank crypto casinos across the whole site: a documents-and-clauses methodology, not a review of what's most generous.
The Five Checks, in Order
Here's how we rank crypto casinos, check by check, from the most basic question to the most specific.
Check One: Does an Identity-Check Clause Exist at All?
The first and most basic check is simply whether an operator's terms contain an identity-check clause in the first place. Bitcasino.io does, under clauses 3.13 and 6.6. Jack.com and Wild.io don't — nothing on identity verification turned up in what we read for either one, which is a blank on this very first check before any of the other four even come into play. A missing clause here doesn't mean an operator never asks for identity documents in practice; it means nothing on the subject is published where we looked.
Check Two: Does It State the Moment It Applies?
Passing check one only means a clause exists — check two asks whether that clause states when it triggers: at sign-up, at a specific deposit, or at withdrawal. Rocketpot's clauses 11.4 and 12.4 state the check applies at withdrawal, with a threshold of US$2,000–2,500. Bitsler, by contrast, has an identity-check clause that exists but doesn't clearly state the moment, amount or deadline — a clause that passes check one and stalls on check two, which is a meaningfully different result from having no clause at all.
Check Three: Does It Tie to a Stated Amount?
The third check looks for a specific figure attached to the identity-check trigger — not just “at withdrawal,” but at what threshold. Bitcasino.io ties its check to €2,500 under clause 3.13. Wild Fortune's identity-check clauses, under 2.7 and 11.2, don't state an amount at all, even though they do state a trigger event — again, a partial pass, not a full one and not a zero.
Check Four: Does It Set a Document Deadline?
The fourth check asks whether the clause sets a deadline for submitting the requested documents once an identity check is triggered. This is the check most operators' published terms leave thinnest across the twelve we read — most state that a check can occur without stating how long a player has to respond once it does. Where a deadline is stated, we cite the clause number directly; where it isn't, that's recorded as a blank on this specific check, separate from whether the clause exists at all.
Check Five: Does the Licence Resolve in the Issuer's Own Register, Under the Casino's Own Domain?
The fifth check is the one most worth running yourself: does the licence number printed in an operator's terms actually resolve as active in the issuing authority's own register, tied to that operator's own domain? Rocketpot cites licence number 1668/JAZ in its terms, but checking the issuer's own portal, twice, on 12 and 13 September 2026, returned that number as not valid — a clean, checkable failure on this fifth check, independent of anything else in Rocketpot's terms. Metaspins shows a different kind of result on the same check: its terms cite an Anjouan licence under clause 1.1, while the Curaçao register separately lists Metaspins as active under its own entry — two authorities, unreconciled, which we report as a conflict rather than resolving ourselves. Against both, Bitcasino.io's Curaçao registration under Moon Technologies B.V., certificate OGL/2023/111/0069, resolves cleanly as active — a full pass on check five.
What a Blank Field Means, and What It Doesn't
A blank result on any of these five checks means one thing only: that information wasn't published in what we read, at the operator's own terms or licence register, on the date we checked. It is never shorthand for “bad,” and it's not an accusation. Jack.com's blank on check one sits differently from Rocketpot's active failure on check five — one is silence, the other is a specific, checkable contradiction — and we try to keep that distinction clear throughout the site rather than treating every blank the same way. Our checklist for spotting a legit crypto casino walks through this same distinction with more worked examples.
The Two Exceptions: Where We Actually Played
Every check above is a documents check — read, not played — with exactly two exceptions on this entire site. We deposited and withdrew our own money at Vave on 28 August 2026; withdrawals cleared with no identity check requested, up to roughly 5,000 USDT cumulative in that one account, though clause 8.7 still permits Vave to request identification before any payout. Separately, we made USDT deposits at TrustDice over several weeks through May 2026; withdrawals cleared unverified until cumulative withdrawals passed roughly US$5,000, at which point a withdrawal went to “payment under review,” followed by a compliance email with a Veriff link — a driving licence was rejected, a passport passed on the fifth attempt, and a second document request followed by a separate email later.
Those two accounts are the only ones on this site where “we tested,” “we played” or “we deposited” applies — everywhere else, including every operator scored on the five checks above, the claim is “we read,” never “we played.” Keeping that line visible is part of the methodology itself, not an aside.
For more on how the site itself is funded and who does this reading, see about CryptoCasinoPhilippines.