Crypto Casino Switzerland 2026: Bitcoin casinos compared

Of the 30 operators compared, 28 carry a licence number in our data. For one of them it is only the prefix « ALSI- » with no digits, which cannot be looked up in any register; that leaves 27 checkable numbers. Two fields are empty — they belong to operators under Maltese supervision and under Maltese, British and Swedish supervision respectively, whose numbers we do not hold. Empty here does not mean « no licence », it means « not read ».

Those 27 readable numbers are not 27 different numbers but 18. A single Curaçao number, 365/JAZ, appears against nine brands in this table, and behind those nine brands stand nine differently named companies. The number OGL/2024/1307/0748 covers two brands of the same company, Scores55 Tech B.V., and Dama N.V. stands behind both BitStarz and Winz.io. What gets registered is the company, not the sign on the door.

By jurisdiction, 25 of the 30 entries name Curaçao, seven name Anjouan — four of those in addition to Curaçao — and two name Malta. One operator in the comparison accepts no cryptocurrency at all and is included as a control case from the regulated side.

In the editorial fact library, which covers 100 brands and so reaches well beyond this table, the same pattern repeats: 68 brands publish a number, but distinct numbers come to 53, and nine numbers cover 24 brands between them. One Anjouan registration there runs across five brands at once. Five further brands carry a number the register marks as revoked. That is a large sample, not the table on this page.

A number proves that someone paid a fee — not who answers when a dispute starts.

The ranking with number and register per operator shows which number belongs to which brand and which brands share one.

The withdrawal ceiling is the figure that matters on the day something jams, and it is missing almost everywhere. For 26 of the 30 operators the ceiling depends, by their own terms, on the VIP tier; no single figure valid for everyone is stated. Three operators write that they set no ceiling at all. Exactly one puts a number on it: 2,200 dollars per day.

For none of these entries does our table carry the clause number from the contract text. That is a gap in our data and not a charge against the operators: the provision sits in their terms, it is the exact reference we failed to record.

In the 100-brand library, 14 publish a ceiling, and the reference period already diverges — six per week, five per month, two per day, one per single payout. Eight count in euros, three in dollars, two in USDT. Two figures without a period and without a currency are not comparable, and a comparison that lines them up anyway conceals precisely that.

This page gives no withdrawal times: there is no account behind this page from which anything could have been measured. How the documents are worked through operator by operator is described in the review section.

There are three patterns and no standard. 13 of the 30 operators require identity verification before the first withdrawal, with no amount limit at all. Nine name no figure and reserve the check on a risk assessment. Eight name an amount.

The eight amounts sit far apart: twice 2,000 euros, once 2,500 euros, once 2,200 dollars, twice 5,000 dollars, once 10,000 dollars and once 100,000 dollars. For the 2,500 euros at Bitcasino.io the reference is known — clause 6.6 of the terms. For the other seven figures our table carries no clause number.

The fact library shows how rarely a figure appears at all: the identity clause is read there for 49 brands, and all 49 reserve the right to demand a document at any time. Five name a sum — Bitcasino.io, Sportsbet.io and Livecasino.io at 2,500 euros each (clause 6.6), Rocketpot at 2,500 dollars (clause 11.4), Empire.io at 2,000 USDT (clause 5.4).

A threshold says when the check arrives automatically — not when it is ruled out.

Which operators state a figure at all is set out on the verification page, together with the wording operators use to keep the check open regardless of the amount.

Bitcoin and Ethereum each appear in 29 of the 30 entries; the thirtieth accepts no cryptocurrency. After that the curve drops quickly: Litecoin at 24 operators, Dogecoin at 21, XRP at 17, USDC and BNB at 12 each, TRON at 11, Bitcoin Cash at 9, Solana at 8, Cardano at 6. A long coin list on an operator's front page therefore says little; what counts is the chain actually offered in the deposit window.

USDT is taken by 24 operators, and here the fee is decided by the network, not by the brand. Of those 24, fifteen document TRC20 only, nine document both TRC20 and ERC20. Not one accepts USDT over ERC20 alone. Sending the coin over the wrong network loses it — that is a property of the chains, not of the casinos.

This is why the three coin clusters are built separately: casinos that accept Bitcoin deposits, operators that take Ethereum directly and USDT split by network.

On the games side the choice is narrower than the front pages suggest. Pragmatic Play sits in 29 of 30 lobbies, Evolution in 19, BGaming in eight. Declared game counts run from 2,000 to 10,000, but what is counted is titles, not studios: two lobbies with very different figures can hold largely the same games.

18 of the 30 operators state a percentage for their welcome offer, eleven of them 100 per cent. Twelve state none. A maximum amount is quantified by 19; for eleven our data carries « varies », which means no fixed figure is publicly confirmed — not that no limit exists.

The rest is settled by the wagering requirement. 13 operators publish a multiplier, values running from 0× to 45×; for 17 none is publicly confirmed. An offer of 90,000 dollars with a high multiplier is arithmetically a different object from 300 USDT with a low one, and the percentage on the banner does not separate the two.

The deadline is the third figure, and the one people rarely read. 26 of the 30 operators set 30 days, two set seven, one ten and one three. For these deadlines our table carries no clause numbers; they sit in the operators' own bonus terms.

Only three figures taken together produce an amount that can be withdrawn: ceiling, multiplier, deadline.

Which bonus types exist and what their conditions hang on is built as its own section, with the figures per operator instead of a ranking of promises.

25 of the 30 operators document support in English only. Five name German. Exactly one names German, French and Italian together. None names Romansh.

For a country with four national languages that is the most practical figure in the whole table. A dispute over a bonus condition or a delayed withdrawal is conducted in writing, and it is conducted in the language support understands — not in the one the offer was read in.

The review section of this site is therefore not a star average but a reading of documents: what the terms say, which clause carries it, when it was read. Seven purported reader voices, with invented names and invented withdrawal amounts, were removed from the data, because no person stood behind any of them.

Messages from readers come in through a form. Until a checked message exists, the section stays empty rather than being filled.

Every figure on this page comes from one of two sources: the operators' terms or a licence register. Where the figure is missing there, this page says it is missing. An empty field flags a gap in the research and is never an advantage for the operator.

What is not here: no accounts opened by us, no deposits, no withdrawal times timed by us. Where a statement comes from the operator, it is marked as the operator's statement and not as a result.

The operators are of different ages. The oldest in the comparison has been active since 2013, the newest since 2025, and the most frequent founding year is 2016 with five entries. Age alone says little; it says only how long the same company has carried the same brand — and how often the licence number changed in that time is not laid open by any register.

Anyone using this table is best served reading it in this order: jurisdiction and number, then the verification rule, then ceiling and processing time, and the offer last. The ranking is built in exactly that order, and the criteria with their weightings are open, so that every position can be recalculated.