About us

Verified Crypto Payouts is a data product, not a review blog. The site publishes verifiable on-chain evidence about crypto-casino payouts: which operator wallets are paying out, how often, and in what amounts. Every figure on the site resolves to a transaction hash you can check on the public block explorer yourself.

We do not currently conduct first-party withdrawal tests at scale. That part of the brand, "we tested it ourselves", would cost real money we do not have. We refuse to claim tests we did not run. Where a first-party test does exist, the page carries the redacted transaction hash. Where it does not, an audit-only banner says so.

Most crypto-casino affiliate sites are written first and audited second. They start from "this casino is great, here is why" and reverse-engineer the evidence. We work the other way around. We start from the on-chain data: wallets attributed to operators by independent analytics, real outgoing USDT transfers, license numbers checked against regulator registries where possible. We write only what the data supports.

Three consequences of that:

• An operator can appear on the leaderboard without being recommended. The leaderboard ranks by observed on-chain payout activity, not by editorial preference.
• A "Watchlist" status on this site is not necessarily bad. It means we do not yet have enough independent evidence to give the operator a stronger signal. We say so plainly instead of dressing the gap as a positive.
• Affiliate links are present on operator pages where we have a referral agreement. They carry FTC disclosure, do not affect our verdict, and are absent on Watchlist pages entirely.

The site is built and maintained by Dmitry K., a data engineer. I am not a gambling-industry insider. The methodology rests on what I can do well: wallet attribution, block-explorer parsing, registry lookups, structured data. It does not claim what I cannot back up.

If you want to verify any claim on this site, every page links to its sources. The operator's own page is cited where the operator made a statement. The regulator registry is cited where a license can be cross-checked. The block explorer is cited for every transaction hash. If something here is wrong, the methodology page explains the corrections policy.

We do:

• Track real on-chain USDT payouts from operator-attributed wallets, daily.
• Cross-check license numbers against UK Gambling Commission and Malta Gaming Authority registries where the regulator publishes one.
• Surface adverse signals when we find them: expired licenses, name mismatches, missing registry confirmations.
• Mark operators as Watchlist when our evidence is too thin to recommend.
• Disclose every affiliate relationship with rel="sponsored" and a banner.

We do not:

• Claim withdrawal tests we did not personally run.
• Mark a license as "registry-verified" without a human who has clicked through to the regulator's own page.
• Activate a payout wallet for tracking without a person confirming the Arkham Intelligence entity label.
• Take payment for ranking position on the leaderboard. The leaderboard ranks by observed payout count and outflow only.

The fastest way to flag an error is to write to [email protected] with the page URL and the specific claim you are disputing. I read everything that comes in and reply within a few days. If your correction shows up in our methodology changelog, that page records what changed and why.

For operator wallet leads, that is, addresses you believe belong to a specific casino we have not yet tracked, there is a Suggest a wallet form. It funnels into the same review queue we use for everything else.

I do not take requests to remove negative information, change a verdict, or speed up a listing. The verdict logic is deterministic and lives in the code (see methodology). If you think the verdict for an operator is wrong, the way to change it is to provide evidence that changes the underlying signals.