Flagged Crypto Casinos
Operators with a documented failure to pay, or a licence confirmed withdrawn. Every entry carries evidence on the operator’s page.
The finding: no operator on the register meets the evidence bar for flagged
Flagged needs one of two things on file: a documented failure to pay a player, or a licence the issuing authority has confirmed withdrawn. Neither is recorded against any of the 24 operators on this register today. The build refuses to publish a flagged status without that evidence attached, so this page is empty by rule and not by oversight.
The distinction being drawn is narrow and worth stating plainly. Calling a business fraudulent without evidence is defamation, and a register that did it casually would deserve to be ignored on everything else it says. Weak terms are not a failure to pay. A withdrawal that took longer than advertised is not a failure to pay. A licence whose term has ended while the authority records the status as assessment in progress is not a licence confirmed withdrawn, and five operators on this register sit in exactly that position.
What is recorded instead is 38 high-severity contradictions across the register, every one of them citing both sides. Those are facts about documents, which is a standard this page can meet. A failure to pay is a fact about a transaction, and the register holds no transaction of its own yet. The table below shows the licence position of every operator so the gap between unconfirmed, lapsed and withdrawn is visible rather than collapsed into one word.
| Operator | Licence status on record | Confirmed in register | High-severity contradictions |
|---|---|---|---|
| BC.GAME | Valid | yes | 1 |
| BetFury | Assessment in progress | yes | 5 |
| Bets.io | Valid | yes | 0 |
| Bitcasino | Indefinite | yes | 0 |
| Cloudbet | Assessment in progress | yes | 1 |
| Coins.game | Valid | yes | 0 |
| Duelbits | Assessment in progress | yes | 1 |
| Flush | no status published | no | 1 |
| FortuneJack | Valid | yes | 1 |
| Gamdom | no status published | no | 3 |
| Jackbit | Assessment in progress | yes | 4 |
| Lucky Block | no status published | no | 1 |
| mBit | Indefinite | yes | 0 |
| Metaspins | Valid | yes | 1 |
| Rakebit | Valid | yes | 3 |
| Rollbit | Expired | yes | 1 |
| Roobet | Indefinite | yes | 1 |
| Shuffle | Indefinite | yes | 3 |
| Sportsbet.io | Active, with no expiry recorded | yes | 1 |
| Stake | Assessment in progress | yes | 2 |
| Thunderpick | Assessment in progress | yes | 1 |
| Vave | no status published | no | 3 |
| Wild.io | no status published | no | 0 |
| Winz.io | no status published | no | 4 |
The same question, asked in 5 other markets
Status is assigned from the same evidence whichever market you read the register in, but what an offshore operator is being compared against is your own regulator. These are the register pages written for ten of them.
How an operator lands here
Statuses are derived from the evidence on each operator’s page by the rules published at our methodology page. Commercial relationships are not an input to that decision: the scoring function never receives the partner flag, and the build rejects any operator file carrying a hand-written score.
Flagged is reserved for a documented failure to pay or a licence confirmed withdrawn, and it requires evidence attached to the entry. The build refuses to publish a flagged status with no cited contradictions and no complaint data behind it.
That constraint protects operators as much as readers. Calling a business fraudulent without evidence is defamation, and a register that did it casually would deserve to be ignored on everything else it says.