By popular request from this forum and elsewhere we have several new additions like Stake, BC.Game, Flush and others. More coming soon!

Thanks for pointing this out. We trust the judgment of Gosu and proven authorities like Casinomeister, AskGamblers and Casino Guru as well.

Unfortunately there will probably always be some controversies associated with major casino operators so we'll just have to continue keeping track and re-evaluating as we go. That's our responsibility as serious casino guides.

Agreed. Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback and help us improve further.

We did indeed do our due diligence and the consensus outside of this forum is that it's a solid operator, which is also the opinion of some members of this forum as well.

Quick case in point including some of the largest and most respected comparison sites, both general and crypto-focused:

https://www.askgamblers.com/online-casinos/reviews/bitstarz-casino (including 522 user ratings)
https://casino.guru/BitStarz-Casino-review (including 428 user ratings)
https://www.casinomeister.com/casino-reviews/bitstarz/
https://lcb.org/casinos/bitstarz
https://bitcoincasinokings.com/reviews/bitstarz/
https://cryptomaniaks.com/bitstarz-review
https://www.coinbuzz.com/casino-reviews/stars-casino/
https://coingambling.info/reviews/bitstarz-casino/
https://www.btcgosu.com/review/bitstarz-casino/

And so on.

We respect that there's a difference in opinions here (which should be obvious since we've agreed to re-review the concerns that have been raised) but our original review score was not really deviating from the norm.

Hopefully that's enough clarification about the original inclusion of this particular operator. Thanks for giving us some food for thought.

If you're referring to Bitstarz, yes, our review was positive because our own experience has been positive. It's also one of the oldest and most popular crypto casinos and has been reviewed positively by most major review sites (BCKings, Gosu, CoinGambling, BBC), as we've previously pointed out.

If you choose any major crypto casino and google their brand name + "scam" you will find numerous claims, even if the casino is generally considered legitimate. Try it with Stake for example. Illegitimate claims can make it difficult to identify legitimate claims and popular operators all get them.

Having said that we have already removed Bitstarz while we're re-reviewing their particular claims.

Also, our reviews are not based on what a casino tells us about themselves but based on our experiences actually playing at the casino.

Hope that clarifies things.

I believe that the current selection has been explained in the thread but let me know if it's still unclear. We're also currently in the process of reviewing several more of the most well known brands so you should see them soon.


Yes, you got it right regarding the process itself. We understand that we currently miss several brands that really deserve to be acknowledged but we'll get to them as soon as possible.

We obviously want to avoid promoting anyone that is generally known for being shady (we're currently re-reviewing the feedback on Bitstarz, as mentioned) but we'll want to list some lesser known brands that we've had a good experience of.

Thank you for highlighting these, their years of establishment have now been updated along with some others. The 1400+ list could have more inaccuracies but everything should be correct in the reviews since it's normally double or triple checked at that stage.

The reasons for discrepancies is that there's sometimes mismatches between various sources (About pages vs ANN threads vs third-party databases or other reviews vs domain registration dates that are actually later than claimed launched dates etc) but we'll make sure to quickly adjust anything that is inaccurate.


Agreed, and that's why we clearly state: "The goal is to maintain a complete database and source of reference, so we're neither recommending every single casino on this list nor implying that they are to be trusted. On the contrary, many of these online casinos are likely not to be trusted." on the 1400+ page.

We will keep testing and adding the reputable casinos to the pages which actually contains recommendations.


Agreed. Country restrictions will always be a bit tricky since some operators are allowing access through VPN and some aren't - but some of those who are might occasionally claim issues with it later at withdrawal.

We obviously try to test for this but since we never know for sure how and when it's being applied we need to cross check with more sources, like feedback on this forum and other professional reviews, to form a general opinion.

We have identified and listed the basics about 1400 casinos but not yet tested and written reviews of all of them.

As you say, you need to know (at a minimum!) that withdrawals will go through and the entire process of signing up, depositing, playing, withdrawing, testing customer support, documenting the process and formatting and publishing a review simply takes time for each.

We also want to cross-check with forums like Bitcoin Talk and other reputable reviewers so we haven't missed anything.

Happy to hear that you liked the look of the site. Stake will hopefully be added soon.

Good and very valid questions, thanks for bringing them up so we can clarify.

Our lists are currently based on a number of factors such as the review score, the click-through rates of the visitors, the conversion rate of the visitors, the freshness of the brand, the overall reputation of the brand and more. It's not fixed forever and we'll be moving things around based on both data and user feedback.

While compensation as a ranking factor could theoretically make sense the commissions usually doesn't differ that much and so it's more interesting to observe which casinos our visitors choose and ultimately stick with.

If we recommend terrible casinos the visitors likely won't convert anyway and so it wouldn't matter what the commission is. Plus, they would start losing trust in the site. That's why we're asking for feedback and take it very seriously.

We'll always be open to reviewing our methodology but we think it makes sense at this point at least.


With regards to our selection of brands it's been covered earlier in the thread but just to recap:

Since we have identified over 1400 casinos and are reviewing them manually we've had to prioritize the order in which we work through them. So far we've tried to mix some very established, well known and generally acclaimed brands with some newer and less known brands.

The main reason for this is that we wouldn't serve much of a purpose (in our opinion, at least) if we just listed exactly same brands as others.

There's also players actively looking for new brands and/or information about a particular new brand. In those cases we can offer more value than just review no. 387 of a brand that everyone already knows.

As for user reviews we think that those are a good idea and that's why we have enabled visitor comments on every review now. We'll consider to adding user ratings (e.g. 1-5 stars) as well but we'd need to make sure that they aren't abused by operators trying to boost their own brands (or shoot down competitors). So far it seems to work pretty well for Gosu (as an example) though so we're open to the idea.

Feel free to check out our existing reviews to get an idea for what you can expect more of in the future.

On mobile the column names won't be visible. Click on the casino name below a star rating to see the detailed review. The logo and Play button links to the casino itself, the casino name (in plain text) links to our review.

Since we take feedback from seasoned members here seriously we have just removed Bitstarz from our primary lists while we are re-evaluating everything that has been written on Bitcoin Talk about them up until this point.

Our review of them will technically remain live in the meantime but won't be easily accessible.

Next to the "Casino" column with the logos there is a "Review" column with ratings. The casino name below the rating links to the review. It should be easy to find but if it's not obvious we'll have to re-consider the implementation.

The current sorting shouldn't be perceived as the definite or final list as we still have many, many more casinos to review. We will also try to mix older and more established casinos with newer ones, as explained previously in the thread.

But now that you can hopefully find the reviews you can check them out and hopefully learn more about our reasoning.

Now regarding Bitstarz, our own experiences have been very positive and, as you're probably aware, most other major comparison sites (e.g. BCKings, Gosu, CoinGambling, BBC etc) have given them favorable to very favorable reviews so in that sense our rating is very consistent with the current consensus.

Having said that, we have read and noted the criticism that they have received as well. It seems like most issues are related to some players gambling from expressively restricted regions and occasionally getting issues with KYCs and/or withdrawals. However, similar issues have been reported on occasion with most of the larger and popular operators. Very few (if anyone?) with any substantial market share has zero complaints.

Our conclusion, based on the number of reports vs their overall popularity and usage (and the aforementioned other professional reviews), differs from yours.

But we have noted your opinion and respect it, of course. Thanks for letting us know.

Yesterday, based on feedback in this thread, we added a "+ BitcoinTalk Thread" note as a feature next to these casinos in our lists. Hopefully that should make it pretty easy to distinguish them.

However, we could also create a separate page with a unique list that only includes casinos with ANN threads. We'll get to work on that.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. As mentioned we would want and need permission to aggregate ratings from others and we'd have to think a bit about how it would be best implemented (if we got it). But it would indeed be useful for players.

---

It's not a solo project but we're a small team and hence it takes time to do it properly. But we'd rather take our time than churn out generic descriptive (or even AI generated) content that some others unfortunately do these days.

Regarding our recommendations you're likely right; our lists will probably change over time. However, the most important thing is that players can learn whether or not they can generally trust a particular casino. Besides that there will always be subjective opinions about things like the look and feel of the brand, the game selection, various features, bonus structures etc.

---

We heed your warning and that's why we've enabled comments for every brand review as well. We'll look into any feedback we receive through comments, or through this forum or in private.

We will also look into how we can possibly incorporate player feedback from Bitcoin Talk directly into the reviews as well. It's not obvious how to fairly aggregate and present an "average" opinion but we'll give it a thought.

Thank you for helping us improve.

---

Thank you for the encouragement and the bug report, we'll look into this right away. As others have already mentioned it seems to be related to the menu going out of bounds at a certain resolution.

---

"Simple" and "easy to navigate" were two of the main things that we were going for so really happy to hear that that was your first impression. There are definitely more flashy sites out there but we think that our users care more about the actual substance.

Also appreciate the welcome messages and constructive feedback so far. Warms your heart a bit after putting in many hours of work to build something.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

That's correct, not started, as confirmed in an earlier reply. We will always want to form our own opinion based on our own experiences but it makes sense to cross check our final scores with some other reputable sites and reviewers, yes.

We could also consider mentioning others final review scores somewhere (without copying any of their original content of course), if we get permission to do that.


There shouldn't be any casinos listed as "untested" with a star rating anywhere. If you find one let us know so we can correct that. Ratings are for tested casinos only, of course.

Happy to hear that you thought that the website is OK, but I'm not sure which other project/website you're referring to? Just to be clear we're not casino operators.

Great question!

So as many of you know several of the most well-known and highly regarded crypto casinos have been around for about 5 to 10 years at this point.

During this time they have been consistently tested and reviewed about by every imaginable guide and comparison site, and discussed in forums like this one, of course.

If we only reviewed and listed a handful of the top brands we would probably just end up rehashing a lot of known information without really bringing anything new to the table. We'd have no real raison d'être.

Also, if you study search trends you'll realize that the more mature a particular gambling market becomes, the more demand grows for new experiences (both games and sites). We're starting to see this in the crypto gambling space as well.

So we simply felt that there was a gap to fill here and so we've been testing and reviewing both established top brands and some new brands.

However the new brands haven't been completely random up to this point. Normally the operator/program has had some kind of track record with other casinos and several brands are fiat/crypto hybrids.

Having said that, we have heard the feedback loud and clear in this thread and going forward we will work hard to catch-up with many great brands that people are missing from us so far.

We haven't yet tested Duelbits (as in creating an account, depositing, playing various games, withdrawing winnings or talking to their support) and hence we haven't been able to review or give them a rating either.

We have just listed them, along with other casinos we are yet to test and review, with the basic information we have collected so far (name, URL, year of establishment, license, crypto/fiat payments) as a freely accessible database to anyone who's interested.

Once we have properly tested and reviewed a casino we'll mark it as reviewed and, if the conclusion was positive, we'll add them to one or several lists with actual recommendations.

Good suggestion regarding a screenshot and yes, it currently does look a bit dull in comparison to some other sites out there.

Regarding authors and bylines it's tricky. If you skip it completely you'll have some people complaining about that. But if you go with full names and unedited profile pictures someone might risk real life abuse because they wrote something that someone didn't like. And if you do something in between someone will be displeased with that as well We'll see if we can come up with something better.

Thanks!

Agreed that it's highly relevant but not as straight forward as reviewing some other things due to limitations in supported casinos and games. Will consider, discuss and analyze others implementations. Thanks!

Thank you for the suggestions. We'll have all of them reviewed and listed (if they're good, as expected).