How we rate operators
Every number on this site is derived from the data on the operator’s own page by the formula below. Nothing is hand-written, and no commercial relationship touches a status or a score. That rule is enforced in the code: the build rejects any operator file that contains a hand-set score.
The rule that matters most
CryptoGuardz holds commercial affiliate relationships with some of the operators it reviews, and intends to be paid through them, though no outbound link here carries affiliate tracking yet. Every page carrying such a relationship says so above the fold. The relationship does not and cannot influence the status or the score, because both are computed from the evidence fields and a partner flag is not one of the inputs. If a partner’s data is unflattering, the page says so. Three of the fourteen operators on the register are commercial partners, and noting that all three sit on the watchlist would prove nothing, because all fourteen do. What can be checked is the mechanism, which is set out in full below.
The scoring formula
Five components, weighted. A component with no data is excluded from the denominator rather than counted as zero, so an operator is never punished for a measurement we have not made yet, and the maximum is always 100 rather than the sum of the components we happen to have. Where fewer than 30 points of weight have data, no score is published at all.
| Component | Weight | How it scores |
|---|---|---|
| Licence verification | 30 | 30 multiplied by the authority weighting in the table below, then by 0.6 if the register status is anything outside valid, active, indefinite, assessment in progress, then by 0.6 again if that same register records the licence term as having ended before the date we reviewed it. Zero if the licence is asserted by the operator but not found in the register, and zero if no licence number was found at all. An unverifiable licence buys a player nothing, so it scores nothing. |
| Measured payout speed | 25 | Our own withdrawal test. 25 at 20 minutes or under, 20 at 60 minutes or under, 14 at 240 minutes or under, 8 at 1440 minutes or under, 3 beyond that. No points until we have run one, and the component is excluded rather than zeroed. |
| On-chain wallet health | 20 | 30-day hot wallet balance trend. 20 at -10% or better, 13 at -35% or better, 6 at -60% or better, 0 below that. Excluded rather than zeroed until a wallet is identified. |
| Claim consistency | 15 | Starts at 15 and decays: multiplied by 0.72 for each high-severity contradiction between marketing and binding terms, and by 0.9 for each medium. It decays rather than subtracting because a linear subtraction hit zero after two findings, which scored an operator with three contradictions the same as one with thirty. |
| Independent safety rating | 10 | Casino Guru’s safety index, normalised to 10. This is the one component that is not a document, and it is somebody else’s opinion: Casino Guru is a review site, and this site is a review site holding that documents beat opinions. It is here because the index is computed from a published method, is revised when an operator’s complaint record changes, and covers dispute outcomes that no binding document discloses. It is capped at 10 points for the same reason, and an operator with no index simply has the component dropped from its denominator rather than scored at zero. If you want the rank without it, the per-component breakdown on every entry shows exactly what it contributed. |
The authority weighting
The largest single input to a rank, and the one this page previously failed to disclose. It is not a judgement about a country. It is a judgement about what the authority offers a player who is holding a complaint: a public register to check, a published complaints or ADR route to use, and a visible record of the authority acting on one.
An earlier version scored only the register status string. Because Anjouan’s authority returns “Valid” and Curacao’s returns “Assessment in progress”, that handed the weakest licence in the market a perfect 30 and put two Anjouan operators at the top of the table. A register string is not a measure of the regulator behind it.
| Authority | Weighting | What it offers a player with a complaint |
|---|---|---|
| Malta (MGA) | 1.00 | published register, statutory ADR route and an enforcement record |
| Isle of Man, Gibraltar | 1.00 | published register and a statutory complaints route |
| Curacao (GCB) | 0.72 | public register and a published complaints route, currently mid-transition under the LOK regime |
| Anjouan | 0.45 | a register exists, but no published complaints route and no visible enforcement record |
| Costa Rica | 0.30 | no gambling-specific regulator; a company registration is not a gaming licence |
| Any authority not listed | 0.50 | Scored at the midpoint rather than assumed good or bad. |
The evidence standard
A licence counts as verified only when we have found it in the issuing authority’s own register. An operator’s footer is not evidence of its own licence. Where a register could not be queried, the page says the licence is asserted and unconfirmed, which is different from saying it is invalid, and we do not conflate the two.
Every negative claim carries a dated, linkable source. An operator cannot be moved to the flagged list without documented contradictions or measured complaint data behind it; the build refuses to publish a flagged status with no evidence attached.
Statuses
trusted Licence confirmed valid in the issuing register, no high-severity contradictions, and payouts measured within stated terms.
watchlist Something material is unconfirmed or contradicted. A lapsed licence term, a marketing claim its own terms deny, or conflicting statements about who operates the site.
flagged Documented failure to pay, or a licence confirmed withdrawn. Requires evidence on the page.
Corrections
Operators who believe an entry is wrong can write to us with the primary source that corrects it. We publish corrections with the date and keep the original in the change log instead of editing history quietly.