Sportmarket — Sports Betting Brokerage | Crypto Deposits | KYC Required

[Haunebu]

At the moment we don’t have anything confirmed regarding additional cryptocurrencies. The current focus has been on supporting the main assets (BTC, USDT, USDC) reliably.

That said, expanding payment options is something we’re always looking at, so if anything changes, we’ll update it here.

Am totally fine with those 3 popular crypto currencies being supported which is usually not an issue for many though some would definitely want more options like dogecoin, litecoin etc just like what sites like Betinasia etc offer on their platforms.

Personally, I don't need more crypto. Instead, I would prefer more popular chains for USDT etc such as Solana, Polygon to be added asap since they are better than TRX chain overall.

[muhuang771]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

[Sportmarket]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

[Kavelj22]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

[AmoreJaz]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

At least they are pretty straightforward about this requirement, so the gambler won't be surprised later on. So they should know already what they are getting into even at the start of their journey of using this site. For me, this requirement is quite a hurdle as most licensed casinos or bookies found in the forum don't have this kind of requirement. So the gambler should weigh his options here and understand about this requirement and should be ready to provide those info if needed. This for me is quite tedious for the site itself as they need to verify the validity of the funds presented for the last 3 months.

[MuffinMaster]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

I think the most important message in this requirement is - only use funds whose source you can prove.

[Haunebu]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

It does suck for sure, but it's sadly pretty common among sports brokers these days thanks to their licenses as op himself mentioned. I have accounts with sportmarket, betinasia etc where I experienced this sort of stuff(Advanced KYC) now and then.

These 2 sites specifically are the most reputed ones which is why it's a bit easier to trust them with such docs, but I don't suggest submitting them at any other broker site just to be safe.

[Sportmarket]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

Appreciate the question, Kavelj22. It wouldn't really be right for us to publish a checklist of what counts as proof for every scenario, every source-of-funds review is done individually based on the user's circumstances, and committing to specifics in a forum post would set expectations we can't realistically keep across every case.

What we can say in general terms:

- Deposits need to come from a wallet you control.
- You should be able to explain where the funds came from and provide reasonable documentation if we ask for it.

That covers the cases you raised. If it ever comes up on your account, support can walk you through what's needed for your specific situation.

[Kavelj22]

The asset verification requirement is too high. It requires verification of funds for the most recent three months, and even one month less is not acceptable. I believe many people will be deterred by this requirement, because I am one of them.

I understand it can feel excessive, but we work under a strict license, which is why the three-month window isn't really something we can shorten case by case. The reason it's set at three months is to get a clear and consistent picture of how funds are moving over time, instead of a single snapshot that can leave gaps. A shorter window tends to raise more questions on the compliance side, which usually causes more friction down the line, not less.

The good thing is that it's mostly a one-time process. Once the initial verification is completed, you usually won't need to go through the same level of checks again unless something on the account changes.

Let me be honest, it is awesome that you ask for everything from the beginning that won't deceive users to register and deposit then stuck with verification upon withdrawal request. It is always better to be as much clear as possible to gain trust. However, I can't figure it out how to handle with source of funds for crypto users. I can think about those using decentralized exchanges or bought some cryptocurrencies from a friend or from a P2P platform. Not to forget those who directly deposit from the wallet of the seller, as I can buy directly from a forum user using another cryptocurrency then give him the deposit address from you sportmarket.
Let's make it easier for readers, actually I am enrolled in a signature campaign in bitcointalk, how can I provide the proof of funds if you will ask me one day?

Appreciate the question, Kavelj22. It wouldn't really be right for us to publish a checklist of what counts as proof for every scenario, every source-of-funds review is done individually based on the user's circumstances, and committing to specifics in a forum post would set expectations we can't realistically keep across every case.

What we can say in general terms:

- Deposits need to come from a wallet you control.
- You should be able to explain where the funds came from and provide reasonable documentation if we ask for it.

That covers the cases you raised. If it ever comes up on your account, support can walk you through what's needed for your specific situation.

I appreciate your detailed response as well, although I might not be that comfortable with your policy to ask about source of funds for crypto users. If someone should always be ready to verify the source of his funds, why to use cryptocurrencies at first place!

As an additional act of transparency, I suggest you add a notice in every deposit session that it is mandatory to use a personal wallet for deposit and being able to confirm a reliable source of funds when asked. Just to avoid the risk if the source of funds will be asked for any reason.

I don't have official stats but I can ensure you and everybody that the number of users using services platforms and H2H deals is so higher than the number of those using personal wallets for daily transactions.

[Sportmarket]

Hey all,

World Cup is here, and we've got two promos running through the tournament:

50% Welcome Bonus, up to €200 (new customers)

One per customer, credited within 24h of first deposit on request to support
5× rollover on Valid Turnover, 90 days to clear

0.15% Live Cashback on all WC matches (everyone, new and existing)

In-play bets only, on WC 2026 matches via the Sportmarket Trading Platform
Calculated on Valid Turnover (smaller of stake or potential profit per bet)
Paid within 7 days of the tournament ending
No rollover, no opt-in, fully withdrawable
Excludes hedged/opposite-side, cash-out, void/push

Full terms + worked examples can be found in our latest blog: https://www.sportmarket.com/blog/world-cup-2026-promo/

Any questions, let me know below.

[Yurkov]

Hey all,

World Cup is here, and we've got two promos running through the tournament:

50% Welcome Bonus, up to €200 (new customers)

One per customer, credited within 24h of first deposit on request to support
5× rollover on Valid Turnover, 90 days to clear

0.15% Live Cashback on all WC matches (everyone, new and existing)

In-play bets only, on WC 2026 matches via the Sportmarket Trading Platform
Calculated on Valid Turnover (smaller of stake or potential profit per bet)
Paid within 7 days of the tournament ending
No rollover, no opt-in, fully withdrawable
Excludes hedged/opposite-side, cash-out, void/push

Full terms + worked examples can be found in our latest blog: https://www.sportmarket.com/blog/world-cup-2026-promo/

Any questions, let me know below.

I apologize if I'm wrong, but I think a welcome bonus and cashback are standard for every casino and sportsbook.
If this is your special offer for a gambling party like the World Cup, I have a feeling your platform probably doesn't have anyone on its team who knows anything about marketing.

[Haunebu]

Checked out your platform recently thanks to an email from your team confirming the inclusion of Polymarket and Kalshi odds which really interested me, but that interest quickly faded away after seeing the odds which were way lower than expected.

What the heck is the point of adding their odds when the fees literally destroy any value that they provide? I still play on Polymarket and I find way better odds when directly betting with them. Pathetic stuff!

[Sportmarket]

Checked out your platform recently thanks to an email from your team confirming the inclusion of Polymarket and Kalshi odds which really interested me, but that interest quickly faded away after seeing the odds which were way lower than expected.

What the heck is the point of adding their odds when the fees literally destroy any value that they provide? I still play on Polymarket and I find way better odds when directly betting with them. Pathetic stuff!

You're right that 50% deposit bonuses are pretty standard at casinos and sportsbooks, that's a fair comparison but we are a broker and work with much thinner margins than soft books do, and most brokers tend to offer either a deposit bonus or a cashback (with smaller limits), but not both at the same time.

So while the numbers don't look unusual next to a casino, for us brokers it's pretty good.

[Sportmarket]

Checked out your platform recently thanks to an email from your team confirming the inclusion of Polymarket and Kalshi odds which really interested me, but that interest quickly faded away after seeing the odds which were way lower than expected.

What the heck is the point of adding their odds when the fees literally destroy any value that they provide? I still play on Polymarket and I find way better odds when directly betting with them. Pathetic stuff!

You're right that the odds are slightly lower than going direct. We're an aggregator so we have to take a small cut for offering several books and prediction markets under one account, that's how brokers operate.
The trade off is having Polymarket, Kalshi and the rest in one place instead of juggling 20 different logins, balances, and KYC processes. That small price difference is usually a lot less than the hassle of managing all of that yourself, but whether that's worth it depends on the setup, completely fair if going direct works better for what you need.

[Haunebu]

You're right that the odds are slightly lower than going direct. We're an aggregator so we have to take a small cut for offering several books and prediction markets under one account, that's how brokers operate.
The trade off is having Polymarket, Kalshi and the rest in one place instead of juggling 20 different logins, balances, and KYC processes. That small price difference is usually a lot less than the hassle of managing all of that yourself, but whether that's worth it depends on the setup, completely fair if going direct works better for what you need.

I get taking a small cut from the odds as commission just like betting exchanges, but the issue here is that the cut is not small at all. I checked several odds and the differences were drastic which is why high liquidities are pointless for gamblers like me.

The commission(cut) on betting exchanges like Betdaq etc and regular sportsbooks like Pinnacle are low and reasonable in comparison.

[internetional]

You're right that the odds are slightly lower than going direct. We're an aggregator so we have to take a small cut for offering several books and prediction markets under one account, that's how brokers operate.

In other areas, aggregators have accustomed users to the idea that making a deal through an aggregator does not involve any additional costs for them. Aggregators usually make money from referral rewards paid by the end providers, rather than by increasing the price.

Still, how large is the brokerage margin? To understand what we are actually talking about - a "small cut", as Sportmarket says, or a "drastic difference", as Haunebu says - it would be helpful to provide specific figures or at least explain the principles behind how they are formed.

[Sportmarket]

Took a couple of screenshots from the same market so the actual numbers are easy to see, England to win against Croatia.





First is the price on our side from the Polymarket feed, best available 1.726. Second is Polymarket direct. The 57c on the front of the order is only the touch price, a 100 buy actually fills around 57.7c, which works out to 1.732.

So 1.726 vs 1.732 on this one, which is about 0.6 on a 100 stake. That is the kind of gap you see on liquid markets like the World Cup games. Thinner markets can run a bit wider, but that goes for betting direct too.

[maydna]

Welcome to Bitcointalk, hope you enjoy stay here.

I visited your site and see the good looking site design but when I click register, I see the requirements are different than others. I see First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth in the step 1, I don't know what is in the step 2, can you simplified that?

I read that account verification may be required, in what terms that thing will apply?

[Sportmarket]

Welcome to Bitcointalk, hope you enjoy stay here.

I visited your site and see the good looking site design but when I click register, I see the requirements are different than others. I see First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth in the step 1, I don't know what is in the step 2, can you simplified that?

I read that account verification may be required, in what terms that thing will apply?

Thanks for the welcome

On registration, the second step is for your address and contact details, so country, city, postal code, phone and address, as well as tick boxes to accept (or not) newsletters from us and that you agree with the T&Cs.

For verification, it is a standard KYC check, the same as any licensed operator runs, and it is required before withdrawals. It is quick and easy to get through, and if anything comes up our team is always there to help.

[CoffeeSipper64]

Took a couple of screenshots from the same market so the actual numbers are easy to see, England to win against Croatia.





First is the price on our side from the Polymarket feed, best available 1.726. Second is Polymarket direct. The 57c on the front of the order is only the touch price, a 100 buy actually fills around 57.7c, which works out to 1.732.

So 1.726 vs 1.732 on this one, which is about 0.6 on a 100 stake. That is the kind of gap you see on liquid markets like the World Cup games. Thinner markets can run a bit wider, but that goes for betting direct too.

Ok but this gap in odds is NOT insignificant for value bettors and sharps.Given how on bigger odds the gap will be bigger (for example 2.3 instead of 2.35) is something to be taken into account for any kind of bettor when he can literally deposit anonymously and polymarket and bet this higher odd.