...
I didn't check the website but I would like to ask if you are the owner of that website or just using it to publish the reviews.
...
Yes, I am the owner, founder and 100% responsible for all the work on the site.
Thanks all for the comments! Some answers:- I 100% agree that Stake should rank higher. Also Crypto.games seems to be trustworthy, but it shouldn't rank so high as they lack games, games look horrible and the UI sucks. I probably have a solution for this.
- About review counts, now the site has 8. Writing a review is a time consuming job, as I do all other things to the site also (design, UI, tech-side etc.). So this is more like a long term project. Hopefully in a year there will be 20-25 reviews online.
- I don't write the reviews with AI, if somebody got that impression. I use AI to crawl the sentiment, analyze it with AI and my own brain, and write the reviews myself.
I guess it’s normal. Just like in gambling sites, there are a lot of things being shown, but we’re the ones who decide what to believe. We can’t control what they write, so it’s really up to us to evaluate if it’s something we trust or not. Because whether we like it or not, most of those reviews are biased. The main goal of many of those websites is to monetize once they become popular.
This is the BIG QUESTION in affiliate sites.
I think the recent model is somewhat broken. Go to Google and search for "best crypto casinos". The top 10 results are from big crypto companies who have their crypto-side, but they have decided to monetize their site with crypto casino reviews (which I understand). Their domain rating & backlink strength is strong as their other non-casino pages get a lot of links.
All writers of these sites claim to be "casino experts" with 10 years of expertise. The reviews are "verified" by another "casino expert". Guess what, they use a lot of AI directly to write the reviews. Because they have so strong domain rating (DR), Google has a hard time deciding if these reviews should rank or not. Right now, they are ranking pretty good. No one knows how much they really test the casinos.
This story goes further to companies that use
Domain Hacking/Buying strategies (they buy an old really strong DR site and build partly or fully AI-generated crypto casino site over that -> ranks well) OR
Parasite-SEO strategies (you have probably seen these newspaper domains turning into crypto casino affiliates, or strange Forbes-links with review content). Luckily Google has punished Parasite-SEO sites hard, but Domain Hack/Buy sites still rank very well. There are few of these in the first page of Google for bigger keywords.
Think once again. Which option will these big companies rather choose:a) Write 100% objective reviews -> Casinos get pissed off due to just average/bad reviews -> Review sites get only the basic 25% rev share deal. The review sites fear that average/bad reviews don't induce players to click their links -> Not so much affiliate revenue.
b) They write somewhat biased/a lot biased reviews -> Casinos are happy -> Review sites get very lucrative 45-50% rev share deals + CPA deals per each depositing player. -> Visitors click more affiliate links from good reviews -> A LOT OF AFFILIATE INCOME.
Of course no one knows the 100% sure answer for this and the true state may be somewhere between a) and b). And of course, it's a legit question to ask how my site does this. But the only way I can even succeed now in 2026 against these giants is to go fully a).
But, this is the world we are now in 2026 for crypto casino review sites.
My project tries to be better than that. Of course it's up to you to decide if you trust "expert reviewers" more than my site. I try to offer an option to those bigger companies, with a lot of player data crunched into a (hopefully more trustworthy) review. I will probably add some personal insight to the reviews to balance them out.
But, you all had some great comments and insights about my site. Now I go to code the review model 3.0 which should be a better one.
I'll be back
