Crypto Casino Ownership Transparency Report 2026: Operators & Brands

Who owns crypto casinos, and which brands share an operator? The answer depends on the legal entity behind each website. A casino brand, contractual operator, licence holder, payment processor and ultimate beneficial owner can represent different companies or people. As a result, a shared licence record or affiliate programme does not automatically prove shared ownership.

CasinoIndex examined 16 casino brands across Curaçao, Anjouan and Tobique using published operator terms, licensing information, official domain certificates and other public documents. The research snapshot is dated 9 November 2026.

Our findings identify named operating companies, licence numbers, selected payment arrangements and several possible cross-brand connections. However, we have not independently established the complete beneficial-ownership chains of these companies. This report therefore separates documented facts from unresolved relationships.

Executive Summary: What the Ownership Research Found

Our research identifies 16 brands with publicly named companies and associated licensing information. Nine entries involve Curaçao, five involve Anjouan and two involve Tobique.

However, the strength of evidence differs. Curaçao provides an accessible company-level licence register and separate domain certificates. Tobique publishes a licence-holder directory and operates a domain-validation service. Meanwhile, the Anjouan records require additional caution because multiple websites claim regulatory authority, and some specific register entries cannot be independently reproduced from their current public interface.

Three findings that matter to players

First, payment companies are not automatically casino operators. Stake and Cloudbet, for example, identify separate payment-related entities in their disclosures. Players should therefore distinguish the company processing a transaction from the company responsible for the gambling contract.

Second, a licence-register entry does not always validate the website itself. CasinoIndex found official Curaçao domain certificates for TrustDice and Duelbits. By contrast, several other company-level entries still need an independent exact-domain check.

Third, apparent brand connections need stronger evidence. Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io have appeared together in published Anjouan licensing information, while King Billy and Tomb Riches share an affiliate programme. Neither observation alone establishes common beneficial ownership.

These distinctions help readers identify the relevant legal entity before evaluating account restrictions, complaints or withdrawal disputes.

Brand, Operator, Licence Holder and Owner: What’s the Difference?

The term “casino owner” often combines several legal roles. However, treating them as interchangeable can lead to incorrect company profiles and misleading sister-casino lists.

The five roles behind a casino

A casino’s published legal operator may also hold its licence. Nevertheless, identifying that company does not necessarily reveal its shareholders or ultimate controllers.

Consequently, this report uses “named legal operator” for contractual disclosures and reserves stronger ownership language for relationships supported by appropriate records.

How CasinoIndex Verified the Ownership Information

CasinoIndex prioritised original documentation rather than repeating company relationships from third-party casino lists. We examined operator terms, relevant licensing records and identifiable domain certificates.

Our evidence hierarchy

E1–E4 describe different documentary checks, not a numerical trust score. E5 cannot independently prove ownership. CasinoIndex did not complete E4 beneficial-owner verification for this sample.

Why exact-domain validation matters

A company may appear in a regulator’s register without the register confirming every domain associated with it. Therefore, the legal entity, licence number and exact website must be checked separately.

For Curaçao, CasinoIndex consulted the Curaçao Gaming Authority licence register and its official domain-certificate system.

For Tobique, we examined the Tobique Gaming Commission licence-holder directory. The regulator also provides an official domain-validation route at validate.thetgc.ca.

By contrast, CasinoIndex treats the Anjouan material as published operator or registry claims unless the specific record and its regulatory provenance can be independently confirmed.

Crypto Casino Operators 2026: Company and Licence Comparison

The tables below show 16 selected casino brands, their named legal entities and the strongest relevant documentary observations. They do not rank casinos by safety, ownership transparency or withdrawal reliability.

Research snapshot: 9 November 2026. The Curaçao register statuses come from the 5 November 2026 edition. Every casino row also links to its CasinoIndex review where a relevant review exists.

Curaçao Operators: Stake, Shuffle and BitStarz

The first three operators have identifiable contractual disclosures and matching company-level Curaçao records. However, CasinoIndex has not independently completed every exact-domain validation.

Curaçao Operators: TrustDice, Roobet and Cloudbet

This group illustrates two important distinctions. TrustDice has an official domain-level certificate, while Roobet and Cloudbet identify separate payment or operational agents.

Curaçao Operators: Duelbits, Jack.com and Bitcasino

Duelbits has an identifiable official domain certificate. Meanwhile, Jack.com illustrates why historical brand names and current operators must remain distinct.

Curaçao status note: The consolidated register uses labels such as “Indefinite” and “Assessment in progress.” These labels are reproduced rather than reinterpreted as CasinoIndex licence-validity decisions. The authority also warns that the register alone does not guarantee current validity. An exact-domain certificate provides additional, separate evidence.

Anjouan: Rollbit and BC.Game

For the Anjouan portion of the report, CasinoIndex relies primarily on the casinos’ own legal disclosures. Their statements establish what the operators publish, but they are not equivalent to an independently authenticated regulator record.

Anjouan: Gamdom, Wild.io and Sportsbet.io

All three operators publish Anjouan licensing claims. However, Gamdom and Sportsbet.io also demonstrate why exact licence-number transcription matters.

Anjouan source limitation: The entries above document company and licence claims published by the operators. Multiple websites claim Anjouan regulatory authority, and individual register results were not consistently reproducible in the public interface during this review. Therefore, CasinoIndex does not classify the licences as fully independently validated regulator confirmations.

Tobique: King Billy and PlayAmo

King Billy and PlayAmo identify Costa Rican operating companies and Tobique licences. The TGC directory also lists both companies as B2C licence holders. However, independent exact-domain validation remains a separate requirement.

Tobique note: The TGC directory confirms company-level listings, not automatically the authorisation of each website. The official validation route is validate.thetgc.ca. CasinoIndex did not complete a separate validator result for King Billy or PlayAmo in this research.

Which Crypto Casino Brands Share Documented Connections?

A shared relationship should carry an exact label: common contractual operator, shared licence record, payment-agent link or marketing partnership. Without that distinction, an ownership report can imply more than the documents establish.

Shared licence listing does not automatically mean shared ownership

The matrix deliberately separates documentary relationships from ownership claims. In particular, a common supplier, licence listing or affiliate programme does not establish a complete corporate group.

Case Study 1: Stake’s Operator, Payment Agents and Regional Structure

Stake provides a clear example of why several company names can appear around one gambling brand.

Medium Rare N.V. operates stake.com

Stake’s terms identify Medium Rare N.V. as the operator and contractual counterparty of stake.com. The company appears in the Curaçao register under OGL/2024/1451/0918.

Separately, Stake names Medium Rare Limited and MRS Tech Limited in relation to payment processing. Consequently, a payment record may contain another company name without changing the primary contractual operator.

Regional Stake brands need separate checks

Stake also publishes licensing arrangements for certain country-specific platforms. However, stake.com does not automatically have the same contractual operator as every regional Stake website.

Therefore, readers should identify the exact domain, the applicable terms and the local legal entity rather than transferring information from one Stake website to another.

Research conclusion: The stake.com operator and named payment entities are documented. The complete ownership chain of all regional companies has not been independently reconstructed.

Official source: Stake licensing information.

Case Study 2: Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io

Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io illustrate why a shared licence association must not replace company-level research.

What Sportsbet.io publishes

Sportsbet.io identifies EZ Spins Ltd as its operator and states Anjouan licence ALSI-202509076-FI2 in its customer-support disclosures.

However, the same help page contains a variant licence-number spelling ending F12 in another section. CasinoIndex therefore records the conflict and recommends checking the original licence document before treating the exact suffix as independently resolved.

What Bitcasino.io publishes

Bitcasino identifies Moon Technologies B.V. as its operator under Curaçao licence OGL/2023/111/0069.

The Curaçao register contains the matching company and licence number. In addition, Bitcasino identifies mProcessing Solutions Ltd as a payment agent.

Previously published Anjouan licensing information has associated Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io with a shared EZ Spins Ltd entry. Nevertheless, the current public register interface did not independently reproduce that complete domain relationship during this research check.

Research conclusion: The separately named operators are supported by public disclosures. A reported shared Anjouan licence association remains a research lead, not independently established common beneficial ownership.

Case Study 3: TrustDice and MollyDice

TrustDice presents a more complicated licensing picture because different public records refer to different companies.

The confirmed Curaçao domain certificate

An official CGA certificate identifies trustdice.win as operated by Satoshi Gaming Group N.V. under licence OGL/2024/664/0280.

The certificate reports Active status, while the consolidated register uses the label Indefinite. These are separate published status fields, and CasinoIndex preserves both.

The reported Anjouan connection

Published Anjouan material has also associated trustdice.win and mollydice.com with Satoshi Labs Ltd.

However, this research did not independently establish the corporate relationship between Satoshi Labs Ltd and Satoshi Gaming Group N.V. Nor did it verify a complete ownership chain connecting the two casino brands.

Research conclusion: TrustDice’s Curaçao operator and domain are documented through an official certificate. The broader MollyDice relationship remains provisional.

Case Study 4: PlayAmo’s Historical and Current Operator Information

PlayAmo demonstrates why an ownership database needs individual source dates instead of one permanent company label.

Current published operator

PlayAmo’s terms, effective 11 May 2026, identify Saphirix Solutions SRL as the company operating playamo.com.

The operator publishes Costa Rican registration number 3-102-933997 and Tobique licence 0000091. Moreover, the TGC directory lists Saphirix Solutions SRL as a B2C licensee.

Why older company records matter

Historical PlayAmo materials have referenced other operating entities, including Dama N.V. However, an earlier document does not automatically establish the current operator.

Likewise, a change in legal disclosures does not itself prove that shareholders sold the casino or that beneficial ownership changed.

Research conclusion: Current PlayAmo terms identify Saphirix Solutions SRL. Any claim of a corporate acquisition requires separate transaction or ownership evidence.

Case Study 5: King Billy and Tomb Riches

King Billy Partners offers a particularly useful example of the difference between an affiliate relationship and common ownership.

One affiliate programme, two named operators

King Billy Partners markets both kingbillycasino.com and tombriches.com.

However, the programme’s legal terms identify Novatrix SRL as the operator of King Billy and SUVYD B.V. as the operator of Tomb Riches.

The terms also name SUVYD LIMITED as a payment-processing company associated with Tomb Riches.

What this proves

The shared marketing programme is documented. However, it does not prove that Novatrix SRL and SUVYD B.V. have the same shareholders or ultimate beneficial owner.

Furthermore, their published licensing arrangements refer to different companies and jurisdictions.

Research conclusion: King Billy and Tomb Riches share an identifiable affiliate-marketing relationship. They do not have a documented common legal operator in the materials examined.

Official source: King Billy Partners legal terms.

Additional Findings: Roobet, Jack.com and Domain Confusion

Roobet and older licensing references

Roobet currently identifies Raw Entertainment B.V. as its Curaçao operating company. Older references to different entities or jurisdictions should remain historical until the relevant documents establish their relationship to the current operator.

Therefore, an old licence page must not override a newer contractual disclosure without further analysis.

Jackbit became Jack.com

Jack.com is also relevant to historical ownership research. The former Jackbit brand completed its transition to Jack.com in 2026.

Current Jack.com disclosures identify Data Link Digital B.V., while historical Jackbit materials refer to a different operating company. Consequently, older complaints and regulatory records must be attributed to the company responsible at the relevant time.

7Bit and lookalike domains

Research also surfaced similarly named websites, including 7biit.com. However, that domain is not the same as 7bit.com.

CasinoIndex therefore excludes those separate domain disclosures from its confirmed 7Bit ownership mapping until the relevant company and exact website can be matched reliably.

This is an evidence precaution, not an allegation against either website.

What Does Ownership Transparency Mean for Withdrawals and Complaints?

Ownership information becomes particularly important when a player needs to identify the company responsible for an account or a disputed payment.

Identify the company behind the contract

Start with the exact website and its current terms. Then record the full operator name, registration details and relevant jurisdiction.

For example, a payment statement may display a processing subsidiary rather than the main gambling operator. Therefore, the transaction name alone does not establish who owes a contractual payment.

Check licence coverage and complaint procedures

Next, compare the operator and licence holder with the regulator’s published records. Where possible, confirm the exact domain through an official validator rather than trusting a static footer badge.

Our guide explains how to verify a casino licence and its domain.

Afterwards, examine the operator’s published complaint procedure, relevant deadlines and any available dispute-resolution route. However, regulatory systems differ, and a licence does not guarantee a successful complaint outcome.

Why country restrictions still matter

An offshore licence does not automatically authorise a casino to serve customers in every country.

Accordingly, players should check local gambling rules and the operator’s regional restrictions before assuming that the displayed licence covers their location.

How to Check Whether Two Casinos Share an Operator

A reliable comparison starts with the exact legal identity behind each brand.

Four practical checks

1. Compare the domains: Identify the official websites and distinguish them from regional variants or lookalikes.
2. Read both terms: Record the contractual company name, registered jurisdiction and company number.
3. Check licensing records: Compare licence holders, numbers, current statuses and approved domains where available.
4. Separate ownership from services: Investigate affiliate, payment and platform relationships independently. Only authoritative company records can establish a specific shareholder or control link.

For the complete process, read our guides on identifying the operator behind an online casino and checking whether two casino brands use the same operator.

Research Gaps and Publication Limitations

CasinoIndex completed a documentary mapping of 16 selected brands. Nevertheless, three categories of evidence remain incomplete.

Unconfirmed domain authorisation

Several companies appear in licensing registers without a separately completed domain-validator check. Therefore, those rows use company-level language rather than claiming full live domain verification.

Unresolved Anjouan record provenance

Operator disclosures provide identifiable licence claims. However, multiple online services claim Anjouan regulatory authority, while some published individual register entries remain difficult to reproduce consistently.

As a result, CasinoIndex distinguishes operator-stated licence data from independently authenticated regulator confirmations. We also preserve conflicting licence numbers instead of silently correcting them.

No independently completed UBO investigation

The available evidence does not identify the full ultimate-beneficial-owner chains for the companies in this study.

Therefore, the report does not label different legal entities as commonly owned merely because they share marketing services, payment agents or previously published licence associations.

How CasinoIndex Updates the Ownership Dataset

CasinoIndex plans to review relevant licence registers monthly. Additionally, an important operator change, new domain certificate or conflicting company disclosure can trigger an earlier correction.

Each record keeps its own verification date

A check of one company’s status does not justify refreshing the entire report’s verification dates.

Instead, every meaningful record should retain the source, exact claim, domain, relevant jurisdiction, verification date and any unresolved limitation.

Our wider editorial principles appear in the CasinoIndex evidence and evaluation methodology.

Initial research change log

Future updates should change only the records actually rechecked. Historical operator information must retain its original context and date.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who legally operates Stake?

Stake’s current stake.com terms identify Medium Rare N.V. as the contractual operator. However, region-specific Stake websites may use different legal arrangements.

Who operates BitStarz?

BitStarz identifies Gareton B.V., a Curaçao company, as its operator. The company appears in the CGA licence register under OGL/2024/165/0185.

Do Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io have the same owner?

Common beneficial ownership has not been independently established. Sportsbet.io names EZ Spins Ltd, while Bitcasino identifies Moon Technologies B.V. for its Curaçao operation. A reported shared Anjouan licence association requires further authentication.

Are TrustDice and MollyDice sister casinos?

Published Anjouan material has associated their domains, but CasinoIndex has not established the legal ownership chain between the relevant companies. Therefore, the sister-casino claim remains unconfirmed.

Can a payment processor own a casino?

Yes, a payment company could also hold ownership interests, but providing payment services alone does not establish that relationship. Separate company evidence is necessary.

What does Assessment in progress mean?

It is a status label in the Curaçao licence register. CasinoIndex does not automatically interpret it as a revoked or indefinitely active licence. The current regulator record and relevant domain certificate require separate checks.

How can I identify a casino’s real legal company?

Read its current terms, record the registered entity and company number, then compare them with licensing records. Where available, check the exact domain through an official regulator validator.

Does a shared licence prove common ownership?

No. A shared published licence relationship can establish a regulatory association, but it does not automatically reveal shareholders or ultimate beneficial owners.

How often will CasinoIndex update this report?

CasinoIndex plans monthly register checks and earlier corrections when material information changes. Each brand keeps an individual source-check date.

Sources, Scope and Final Assessment

Research snapshot: 9 November 2026. CasinoIndex examined 16 selected brands and their publicly named legal entities across Curaçao, Anjouan and Tobique.

We prioritised current operator statements, official Curaçao records, Tobique licence-holder information and relevant domain certificates. However, the Anjouan-related data carries additional source-authentication limitations.

What this report can establish

The comparison identifies named operators, published licence details, selected payment-agent relationships and specific documentary conflicts.

In addition, the case studies explain why historical operator changes and shared marketing arrangements require careful interpretation.

What this report cannot prove

CasinoIndex did not independently establish complete beneficial-owner chains, investigate private shareholder agreements or validate every casino domain through a regulator tool.

Furthermore, a company name or licence record does not guarantee a casino’s financial condition, withdrawal performance or legal availability in every market.

Editorial conclusion

Crypto casino ownership transparency starts with accurate company identification. However, a trustworthy report must also explain what the evidence does not establish.

CasinoIndex’s assessment: The strongest ownership comparison is not the one claiming to reveal every hidden connection. It is the one that identifies the relevant legal entities, documents their roles and leaves unsupported ownership claims unresolved.

Independent research and commercial disclosure: CasinoIndex uses public documentation and does not claim confidential corporate access, private ownership records or independent real-money payout testing. CasinoIndex may receive commissions from certain casino relationships; these do not determine the documentary findings above. Review links provide additional editorial context and do not constitute regulatory approval or a guarantee of safety. Legal structures, licensing records and operating terms can change. This article is informational, not legal advice or a recommendation to gamble. Gambling carries financial risk and can cause harm. Participate only where lawful and if you meet the applicable legal age.