I kinda like the design of the site; it looks good. One thing I would advise you to do is to try to make sure you replace all of the emojis you used on your site with icons. Right now, that whole "ai generated" site is showing, but if you can make those changes, you should be one step closer to achieving a better design.
About the ratings, I saw that some sites takes precedents than other; for the "No-KYC" category, despite having a higher rating than Allstars, Betplay was still placed below it. Don't you rank it based on their ratings, or is it random or alphabetical?
Thanks for the suggestion!
Regarding the rankings, there aren't many reviews yet. In the main review table on the homepage, brands can be sorted by rating, name, bonus, etc.
In other sections, such as No KYC, where there is no table and casino widgets are used instead, the order may be random, alphabetical, or based on when the brands were added. Once there are more reviews, a table will be added, allowing visitors to sort the brands however they prefer.
---------------------------------------------------------
I commend for putting this together, I so much love the idea of this because it will help everyone with all the basic information they need about the casinos and even give them the opportunity to compare with other casinos. I will find time to explore the platform. In details to get better understanding of the work done and how to use the platform.
Thanks, appreciate it!
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to bitcointalk forum sir . Now days many similar sites coming in market I don't know why should I go your sites . I think you should offer some freebies to your customers.
Thanks! There are many sites listing and reviewing crypto casinos, but the goal here is to make filtering easier, keep the content regularly updated, and let visitors search and decide based on the features that matter to them. I haven't seen many sites that offer this.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you are going to revise most information regarding the licensing. I just took a quick look at the few Crypto Casinos & Sportsbooks that you marked as unlicensed and they seem to have some information regarding their current license status
For example crypto-games.io shows this in their terms of service
CryptoGames is operated by Blockchain Entertainment S.R.L., a company registered, licensed, and regulated in Costa Rica by the Gambling Commission under account number 1-7362-459817. The registered office of CryptoGames is located in Costa Rica, San Jose, San Pedro, Canton Montes de Oca.
The same applies to the other two platforms I check.
Thanks for the feedback. This helped me add a more suitable category: Unverified - licensing information is displayed by the operator but cannot be independently confirmed through an official regulatory source.
There is a difference between a gaming license and a company registration. When a brand claims to be licensed, I need to be able to verify it.
In this case, I couldn't verify an official Costa Rican gambling regulator that issues recognized gaming licenses, so it's marked as Unverified.
Please share the other two brands so I can check and update them if needed. Appreciate it!
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you are going to revise most information regarding the licensing. I just took a quick look at the few Crypto Casinos & Sportsbooks that you marked as unlicensed and they seem to have some information regarding their current license status
As well as for the KYC information, I saw some casinos listed as "required" while in fact it is "conditional". I can say because I play on those casinos without KYC so far such as Suffle, Thrill, Yeet. While others are listed as "no kyc" while in fact they are also conditional because the casinos are licensed which has terms about possibility of KYC. I am wondering how they collected the data, I guess that this site use an AI to collect the data and maybe using this forum as one of the sources.
All data collection is manual. Each casino is reviewed individually based on its terms, published information, player feedback, known practices, and reported cases. I try to avoid generalizations and look at the broader context before assigning a KYC label.
For example, I can't fully rely on a casino saying "we don't usually ask for KYC" if I also find many reports across review/complaint sites, Reddit, social media, and forums from players who were KYC-ed before their first withdrawal, for small withdrawals, or after previously withdrawing without verification.
The same applies in reverse: one player saying "I've played there for years without KYC" isn't enough to classify a casino as No KYC. For No KYC, I look for stronger evidence that verification is generally not required and is limited to exceptional cases.
If the terms allow KYC during normal use and there are enough reports of players being asked for verification, I think it's more useful to let players know that KYC is a realistic possibility. I'd rather be cautious than label something "Conditional" or "No KYC" and give players the impression that verification is unlikely when the available evidence suggests otherwise.
It's not always black and white. The process is manual, so human errors are possible, information may be incomplete, and casino policies can change. I'm continuously reviewing and updating the data and trying to improve the methodology to make it as accurate and consistent as possible.
What I can assure you is that a lot of effort goes into researching this information. The goal is to provide accurate information that helps players make informed decisions without creating false expectations based on a single claim or source.
I’ll also double-check the mentioned brands and see if there’s enough evidence to place any of them in a different category. Corrections and additional evidence are always appreciated. Thanks!
