How Blockport rates crypto casinos
There are hundreds of crypto casinos. Most of them will tell you they’re the best. We don’t take that at face value – and we don’t expect you to take our ratings at face value either.
This page explains exactly how we arrive at every score we publish: what we test, what we ignore, how much each factor counts, and why. If you disagree with a rating after reading this, you’ll at least know where to push back.
The short version
We open real accounts. We deposit real money. We play, claim bonuses, and request withdrawals. We document what actually happens – not what the casino’s FAQ says should happen.
Each casino is scored across eight areas on a 1–5 scale. Those scores are multiplied by fixed weights and added up. The number you see in a Blockport review is that sum. No gut feel on top, no last-minute adjustments.
The eight areas we score
Here’s what each area covers and how much it counts toward the final number:
| Area | Weight |
| Licensing & Operator Credibility | 20% |
| Game Fairness & Provider Quality | 20% |
| Payments: Deposits, Withdrawals & Crypto Support | 15% |
| Bonuses & Promotions | 15% |
| Game Library & Provider Depth | 7% |
| Unique Platform Features | 8% |
| User Experience & Mobile | 5% |
| Customer Support & Responsible Gambling | 10% |
The first three – licensing, fairness, and payments – account for 55% of the score combined. That’s deliberate. A casino that fails on any of these three isn’t worth recommending no matter how good the bonus looks.
What the scores mean
Every area gets a number from 1 to 5:
5 — Do this as well as it can be done. Rare.
4 — Solid. Works well for most players. Minor issues that are worth knowing but unlikely to affect you.
3 — Fine, but with trade-offs. A mid-tier license, a newer brand, standard terms that aren’t exceptional.
2 — Real problems. Slow withdrawals, aggressive wagering, support that doesn’t resolve anything.
1 — Don’t use it. No verifiable license, blocked withdrawals, games you can’t trust.
Area 1: Licensing & Operator Credibility (20%)
What we look at:
We start with the license – jurisdiction, license number, and whether that number actually appears in the regulator’s public database. We check who the operator is, where they’re registered, and whether that information is transparent or buried.
Then we look at history. How long has the casino been running? What does its complaint record look like on Casino Guru and AskGamblers? Has it ever had a license revoked or faced regulatory action? Are player funds held separately from the company’s operating money?
Why this matters more than people think:
A license number on a footer means almost nothing on its own. The Curaçao jurisdiction – which licenses the majority of crypto casinos – ranges from serious operators with clean records to platforms that have been blocking withdrawals for years. The license is where we start, not where we stop.
A casino that’s been operating for six years with a 9.1 Casino Guru score and a pattern of resolving disputes is genuinely different from one that launched eight months ago with no complaint history either way. We score both dimensions in this single criterion because they’re answering the same question: when something goes wrong, will this casino behave like a legitimate business?
For brand-new platforms, we note the missing track record clearly and score accordingly – not as a punishment, but as an honest reflection of what can and can’t be verified.
How we do it:
We pull the license number and check it against the issuing regulator’s registry. We look up the operator in corporate filing databases where available. We read through complaint threads on Casino Guru and AskGamblers, focusing on whether the operator engages and resolves issues or goes silent.
Score reference points:
5/5 — MGA or UKGC license, 5+ years running, Casino Guru score above 8.0, transparent ownership, no enforcement history
4/5 — Curaçao license, 3+ years, clean complaint record, operator disclosed
3/5 — Anjouan or Curaçao, under 2 years running, limited public record either way
1/5 — No verifiable license, anonymous operator, documented withdrawal blocks
Area 2: Game Fairness & Provider Quality (20%)
What we look at:
Which companies supply the games? Are those companies real, verifiable partners – or names that don’t appear on any official partner list? Are there published RTP figures for the slots? Has an independent body like eCOGRA or iTech Labs certified the RNG? Are there provably fair games – titles where you can verify the outcome yourself using a blockchain record?
We also check for fake or clone games: low-quality imitations of well-known titles that bypass the original’s RNG certification entirely.
Why it matters:
If the RNG isn’t independently certified, the house edge is whatever the operator decides. A slot from Pragmatic Play has a contractually fixed RTP that’s verified externally and identical at every licensed casino running it. A superficially similar game from an unknown studio has no such guarantee.
Provably fair games go further than certification. They allow a player to take a bet hash and verify the outcome on a public blockchain – no trust in the operator required. For a crypto casino that talks about decentralisation and transparency, offering provably fair mechanics is either something you’ve built or something you haven’t. We check.
How we do it:
We cross-reference the provider list against official partner pages for each named studio. We load at least five games and confirm the correct branding. For provably fair titles, we run at least three verification checks using the published method. We review RTP disclosures for the ten most-played slots.
Score reference points:
5/5 — 10+ verified providers, certified RNG, provably fair originals with on-chain verification, published per-game RTP, no fakes found
3/5 — Three to five mid-tier providers, RNG claimed but not independently certified, no provably fair games, RTP for main titles only
1/5 — Unverifiable providers, no RTP, no RNG certification, clone games present
Area 3: Payments — Deposits, Withdrawals & Crypto Support (15%)
What we look at:
Which cryptocurrencies are accepted? Is fiat also available – cards, bank transfer, e-wallets? What are the actual deposit and withdrawal limits, stated and enforced? How long does a withdrawal actually take from request to wallet? What triggers KYC, and how complex is the verification process? Are there platform fees? Are withdrawal caps disclosed upfront?
Why withdrawals are the test that matters:
Most casinos handle deposits smoothly. Withdrawals are where the real picture emerges. A casino advertising instant crypto payouts should mean funds in your wallet within the hour – not “instant processing after our compliance team reviews your account.” Hidden caps on withdrawals are one of the most common ways platforms strand large wins.
We treat fiat support as a genuine differentiator. If a casino accepts only crypto, it creates a barrier for players who haven’t yet converted through an exchange. A platform that accepts both removes that barrier without compromising anything for crypto-native players.
How we do it:
We deposit using at least one crypto method. Where fiat is available, we test that too. We request a withdrawal and time the entire process from submission to confirmed wallet receipt. Every KYC step is logged. We compare what the Terms say against what we actually encounter.
Score reference points:
5/5 — BTC, ETH, USDT plus fiat, 10+ total methods, withdrawal under 60 minutes, no surprise KYC, caps disclosed, no platform fees
3/5 — BTC/ETH/USDT, crypto only, withdrawal within 24 hours, standard first-withdrawal KYC, moderate caps
1/5 — One or two crypto options, withdrawals taking days, KYC weaponised to delay payouts, hidden caps, added fees
Area 4: Bonuses & Promotions (15%)
What we look at:
Welcome offer – match percentage, free spins, maximum claimable amount. Whether there’s a no-deposit bonus. Wagering requirements and how they’re calculated. Which games contribute, and at what rate. The maximum bet allowed while a bonus is active. How long the bonus lasts before expiring. What ongoing promotions exist: cashback, reloads, tournaments. Whether the VIP program has public tier criteria or is invitation-only.
The gap between the headline and the reality:
A 400% welcome bonus with 70x wagering and a $2 max bet is a worse deal for most players than a 75% bonus with 25x wagering and no bet limit. The headline number is marketing. The wagering requirement, the max bet, and the expiry window are what determine whether a bonus is actually clearable – or whether it exists primarily to delay withdrawals.
No-deposit bonuses get particular weight in our scoring because they give players the chance to test a casino before putting their own money in. That’s a meaningful gesture of confidence from the operator, and we recognise it as such.
How we do it:
We claim the welcome bonus on a fresh account with a real deposit. We play through at least three sessions tracking wagering progress. We document every restriction we encounter – games that don’t contribute, bet limits, time pressure. We calculate the expected value. Where cashback or reload offers exist, we test at least one.
Score reference points:
5/5 — 100%+ welcome offer, wagering 30x or below, max bet $5+, no-deposit bonus on sign-up, meaningful cashback, public VIP tier criteria
3/5 — Standard welcome offer, wagering 35–45x, max bet $3–5, occasional reload, basic loyalty structure
1/5 — Inflated headline, wagering 60x+, $2 max bet, expires in under a week, VIP invitation-only with no published criteria
Area 5: Game Library & Provider Depth (7%)
What we look at:
Total game count across all categories. Number of distinct certified providers represented. Whether search and filter tools work – specifically filtering by RTP, volatility, and provider. Load times on mobile and desktop. Whether free-play or demo mode is available before creating an account.
Volume isn’t the point:
Eight thousand games from a single mid-tier studio is a weaker library than three thousand games from twenty independently certified suppliers. A wide provider base means more variety in RNG implementations, a broader RTP range, and less exposure to any single vendor’s problems. We report both the number and the source, so the difference is visible.
How we do it:
We browse every game section and count meaningful titles per category. We count distinct providers. We test search and filter tools. We load ten games across devices and check load speed. We confirm whether demo mode is available without registration.
Score reference points:
5/5 — 5,000+ titles, 20+ distinct providers, RTP and volatility filters working, fast mobile load, pre-registration demo
3/5 — 1,000–3,000 titles, 5–10 providers, basic navigation, mobile functional with some slowdown
1/5 — Under 500 titles, 1–2 providers, no filters, mobile broken
Area 6: Unique Platform Features (8%)
What we look at:
Provably fair originals – crash, dice, plinko, limbo, wheel – and whether outcomes are actually verifiable on a blockchain. Sportsbook: how many sports, is live betting available, are esports covered? Token-based mechanics: is there a native token, what can you do with it, can you stake it for returns, and are those returns publicly documented? Web3 wallet support. Any other feature that sets this platform apart from the standard casino template.
Why this gets its own area:
Two casinos can score identically on licensing, fairness, and payments – and be completely different products serving completely different players. Stake without its Originals and sportsbook is a different casino. BetFury without its BFG token ecosystem is a different casino. These aren’t bonus features; they define what the platform is.
If we scored unique features inside the game library section, a casino with a deep sportsbook but average slot count would be penalised for something that’s actually a strength. A separate criterion avoids that distortion.
How we do it:
Provably fair: we run at least three verifications using the on-chain method. Sportsbooks: we count sports, test live betting, and check for esports. Token mechanics: we document utility, check whether staking returns are publicly disclosed, and assess how difficult entry is for someone new to it. Web3 wallets: we connect one and document the flow.
Score reference points:
5/5 — Provably fair originals with on-chain verification AND a sportsbook covering 20+ sports with live betting; or a fully developed token ecosystem with documented staking returns
4/5 — Strong provably fair originals OR a solid sportsbook; or genuine Web3 wallet integration
3/5 — Basic in-house titles without full on-chain verification; or a sportsbook covering only the biggest leagues
1/5 — Nothing beyond the standard slot and live casino template
Area 7: User Experience & Mobile (5%)
What we look at:
How long registration actually takes. Whether the cashier, bonus terms, and support are reachable without hunting through menus. How the platform behaves on a mobile browser – no app download required. How many languages are available? Whether the withdrawal path specifically has been made easy or difficult.
Friction is a choice:
A casino where the withdrawal button requires four taps and a sub-menu isn’t poorly designed – it’s designed with intention. We pay particular attention to how hard or easy the platform makes it to get your money out. We also note language coverage, because a player who misreads bonus terms or KYC requirements due to a language barrier is more likely to lose money or trigger a dispute they didn’t see coming.
How we do it:
We time registration from the landing page to the first game. We count taps to reach the withdrawal screen on mobile. We navigate to the cashier, bonus terms, and support channel on both desktop and mobile browser. We test at least three of the advertised languages.
Score reference points:
5/5 — Under two minutes to register, everything within two taps on mobile, smooth browser experience, 10+ languages
3/5 — Three to five minutes, functional on desktop, some mobile friction, three to five languages
1/5 — Mandatory KYC before playing, 10+ minutes, withdrawal buried or broken on mobile, English only
Area 8: Customer Support & Responsible Gambling (10%)
What we look at:
Live chat availability and hours. How fast the first response comes. Whether agents actually solve problems or redirect every query to a help article. Whether deposit limits, session timers, self-exclusion, and cooling-off periods are accessible in account settings. Whether the casino links to GamCare, BeGambleAware, or Gambling Therapy. Whether the responsible gambling policy in the Terms says anything useful.
Support tells you more than you’d expect:
How a casino handles a routine support query is a reasonable proxy for how it handles a dispute over a blocked withdrawal or a contested bonus. Platforms that invest in trained, available support agents tend to be the same platforms that take player complaints seriously. Those that route everything to an FAQ tend not to.
Responsible gambling tools matter on two levels: they’re a direct service to players who need them, and they’re a signal about how seriously the operator takes its obligations overall.
How we do it:
We run three live chat conversations: a general game question, a question about withdrawal timing, and a request to set a deposit limit. We measure first-response time and whether each conversation reaches a real resolution. We check that responsible gambling tools are in account settings – not just mentioned in the Terms.
Score reference points:
5/5 — 24/7 live chat, under three minutes to first response, agents who resolve rather than redirect, limits and self-exclusion in account settings, GamCare and Gambling Therapy linked on-site
3/5 — Live chat 12–16 hours a day, response within ten minutes, basic limits available, responsible gambling in the FAQ
1/5 — Email only, 48+ hour response, no tools beyond a Terms disclaimer, no external resource links
How the final score is calculated
Step 1: Score each of the eight areas on the 1–5 scale
Step 2: Multiply each score by its weight
Step 3: Add the weighted scores together
That total is the published rating. Nothing is added or adjusted after this step.
Worked example
| Area | Score | Weight | Weighted |
| Licensing & Operator Credibility | 4/5 | 0.20 | 0.80 |
| Game Fairness & Provider Quality | 5/5 | 0.20 | 1.00 |
| Payments | 4/5 | 0.15 | 0.60 |
| Bonuses & Promotions | 4/5 | 0.15 | 0.60 |
| Game Library & Provider Depth | 4/5 | 0.07 | 0.28 |
| Unique Platform Features | 3/5 | 0.08 | 0.24 |
| User Experience & Mobile | 3/5 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
| Customer Support & Responsible Gambling | 4/5 | 0.10 | 0.40 |
| Total | 1.00 | 4.07/5 |
What we don’t cover
Financial reserves — We can’t audit whether a casino holds enough in reserve to cover all outstanding player balances. If a casino publishes a Proof of Reserves, we note it – but we don’t independently verify it.
Affiliate terms – We evaluate the player experience, not the commercial arrangements between casinos and traffic partners. Those are separate things.
Whether it’s legal where you are – Online gambling laws vary enormously by country and change regularly. We don’t assess local legality. That’s your responsibility to check before registering anywhere.
A note on independence
We test with our own money. We don’t accept payment for scores or allow affiliate relationships to influence ratings. The score in a Blockport review is the output of the methodology on this page – full stop.
If a casino we’ve reviewed changes something significant – new license, new payment processor, bonus term update, a spike in unresolved complaints – we update the rating. Reviews are checked quarterly as a minimum.
Spotted something wrong?
If you think a score doesn’t reflect reality, we want to know. Either we missed something, or the casino has changed since we last tested it. Either way, it’s worth fixing.
Write to us: [email protected]
Last updated: June 2026
Next review: Q3 2026
