How we score decentralized casinos: five checks, one point each
Method · sources · who writes this
The score out of 5 measures one thing: how much of a platform you can check instead of trust. One point each for custody, settlement, outcome, published contracts and named audits, half a point for "partly". Here are the rules, the sources and what we did not do.
A score is only useful if you can see how it was made. This one is deliberately narrow. It doesn't tell you where you'll have the most fun or win the most. It tells you, for each platform, how many of the places where you'd normally trust an operator you can check for yourself instead.
The five checks
| Check | 1 point | ½ point | 0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody | Your own wallet or smart account | Escrow behind an account, or depends on sign-up | Account balance |
| Settlement | Bets and payouts in a contract | Part on-chain, part off | Operator's database |
| Outcome | Oracle with a proof (VRF) | Committed seed, or data provider with dispute process | Operator's RNG only |
| Contracts | Deployed addresses published | Source code only | Nothing published |
| Audits | Named firm, report available | “Audited”, no firm named | No audit found |
The five add up to 5. Account casinos can get half a point for a provably fair system on their own games, and nothing else.
Where the facts came from
On 18 September 2026 we read each platform's own sources: the app, the docs, the help centre, published contract lists and audit pages. We read from a server in the Netherlands, without connecting a wallet and without using web archives. For BetSwirl we used its official SDK package, the domain record and three Dice bets on Blockscout. For the incidents we used the FBI's press release and CoinDesk's reports.
Where a page was blocked from where we read it, we didn't guess. Fairspin and Rollbit returned access-denied pages, and BetDEX said it wasn't available in our location; none of them is scored. Where a fact wasn't on any page we could read, it counts as not published. That is harsh on platforms with poor docs, and deliberately so: if you can't find it either, it isn't there for you.
What we did not do
- We didn't play on the on-chain platforms. Every score is from documents and chain data.
- We didn't measure payout speed. Settlement on-chain is as fast as the chain; account casinos vary, and two withdrawals aren't a statistic.
- We didn't rate bonuses. Offers change weekly. On-chain platforms mostly don't run them anyway.
- We didn't take money from the scored platforms. None of the six on-chain platforms or the account casinos pays us. The only affiliate link on the site is to Vave.
Our partner, and why it sits outside the score
It goes first on the list, clearly marked, and without a score. It's also where we played with our own money: a crypto deposit and two withdrawals, paid on 28 August and 2 September 2026, with no documents asked. Everything else we know about it, including what its licence certificate says, is in the Vave review.
Why these five, in this order
Custody comes first because it decides what reaches your money when anything else fails; see who holds the money. Settlement and outcome together decide whether a bet was handled fairly; see on-chain settlement and where randomness comes from. Contracts and audits are how you check the first three without reading code; see smart contract audits.
Who writes this site
The site is written by a small desk that reads contracts, docs and terms for a living. We don't publish personal names; the method is the byline. If you find a fact that has changed since the date at the top of a page, it's the platform's own page that decides, and we'll follow it. The scored list is on the decentralized casinos ranking.