How We Review Crypto Casinos
Every score on this site traces back to something you can check yourself. This page explains exactly what we do, what we deliberately do not claim to do, and how the site makes money.
What we actually do
Our reviews are built on document work, not marketing copy. For every casino in the catalogue we read the full terms and conditions, the bonus terms, and the cashier and withdrawal policies, and we extract the specific numbers: wagering multipliers, maximum cashout caps, per-tier withdrawal behaviour, KYC trigger language, restricted-territory lists. Where a casino publishes a claim we cannot reconcile with its own terms, we say so in the review.
We cross-check operator behaviour against public complaint records, primarily AskGamblers and Casinomeister case threads. When a casino has documented unresolved complaints, they go in the review with the amounts: our Roobet review cites specific AskGamblers cases at $20k, $84k, $97k, $111k and $115k where verified accounts saw cashouts held in review, one of them publicly listed as unsolved. That casino carries our lowest trust score, and the affiliate commission we forgo by saying so is the cost of the score meaning anything.
For legal and tax claims (regulator names, statute citations, tax rates and thresholds) we verify against primary sources: the statute text, the regulator's own site, or the tax authority's published guidance. Ireland's tax-neutral position cites Section 613(2) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997; Sweden's one-bonus rule cites Spellag 14 kap. § 9 from riksdagen.se; Germany's holding-period rule cites § 23 EStG. If a fact cannot be verified to a primary source, we omit it rather than guess: you will occasionally see "we don't have a verified figure to share" in our copy, and that phrasing is deliberate.
What we do not claim
We are not a lab. We do not claim to run timed deposit-and-withdrawal experiments at every casino on every network, and we treat published withdrawal windows as the operator's claim, corroborated or challenged by the public record, rather than as our own measurement. Where our withdrawal-time figures come from the operator's stated processing windows, the review says so. No reviewer here has a gambling-industry credential to wave around, and we would rather show you sourced numbers you can check than invented authority you cannot.
The four scores
Trust Score
Licence quality and history, operator track record, documented complaint patterns and resolution behaviour, and consistency between what the T&Cs say and what the marketing claims. This is the score that moves most on negative evidence: documented withdrawal holds and confiscation clauses cost Roobet 2+ points against the field.
Withdrawal Score
Stated processing windows, whether processing is automated or batch-manual, published or documented limits and holds, and the quality of the coin/network lineup for fast settlement. Sourced from cashier T&Cs and the public record.
Bonus Fairness Score
The real expected value of the headline offer once wagering multipliers, bonus-vs-bonus-plus-deposit calculation, game contribution tables, max cashout caps and admin fees are applied. A 500% match can score below a 100% match; BitStarz’s 25% admin fee on bonus-related withdrawals is exactly the kind of term this score exists to surface.
KYC Score
How much identity friction a player actually faces and when: none, at signup, at deposit, or triggered at withdrawal thresholds. Scored from the operator’s published policy and its documented behaviour at scale, which are not always the same thing.
Fact-check dates
Reviews and country guides carry a "Facts last verified" date. That date changes only when we have actually re-verified the page's claims against the operator's live terms or the primary legal sources, on a monthly audit cycle. We do not bump dates to look fresh: a page that says May 2026 was genuinely last verified in May 2026, and you should weigh time-sensitive claims accordingly.
How the site makes money
PlayMagpie earns affiliate commission when a reader signs up at a casino through one of our links. Two structural facts keep that honest. First, no paid placements: operators cannot buy a position, a score, or a softer review, and the rankings order is trust-score order. Second, the reviews that cost us money exist: we publish documented criticism of commission-paying operators and have refused to build recommendation pages where the evidence did not support them. If we would not stand behind a recommendation, the commission is not worth it to us.
What we refuse to publish
Some pages this site deliberately does not have: poker rankings (no operator in our catalogue is a genuine top pick for poker, so recommending one would be padding), a Japan recommendation page (promoting offshore gambling to Japanese users carries publisher-side criminal liability under the 2025 Basic Act amendment), and a deposit guide for the one operator whose documented withdrawal behaviour we cannot square with a deposit-funnel page. The refusals are part of the method: a list that never says no is an advert.
Corrections
If a number on this site is wrong or has gone stale (a regulator changed, a bonus restructured, a statute moved), tell us and we will check it against the source and fix it. Corrections are applied to the page itself, and material ones are noted.
Report a correction →Who we are
PlayMagpie is an independent publisher covering crypto casinos for players in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the Nordics, and is not owned by or affiliated with any casino operator. More on the site's editorial position is on the about page.