I do. Personally, with my own money, from my own wallet.
My name is George V., though most people in this corner of the industry know me as efialtis. I have been testing crypto bookmakers since 2020, first at BTCGOSU and now here. AffPapa iGaming Awards — Crypto Affiliate of the Year, 2022 and 2023.
That matters for one reason only: when a payout goes wrong, I know what normal looks like. A book that suddenly asks for documents it never asked for, a withdrawal that takes four hours where it used to take six minutes — those are the signals worth publishing, and you only see them if you have been watching for years.
Everything on this site is measured by one person. There is no team, no outsourced testing, no data bought from anywhere. If a figure is here, I put it there.
1. A real account, funded with my own coins. No press account, no arrangement with the operator, no pre-loaded balance. Sometimes the account is new. More often it is one I have held for years — both are marked in the record, because a fresh account goes through first-time verification and an established one does not.
2. Real bets. At least one, sometimes ten. Mostly overs. The point is not the bet, it is that the balance has moved before it leaves — an account that deposits and immediately withdraws triggers automated fraud checks, and then you are measuring the fraud system, not the payout.
3. A withdrawal, without warning. No support ticket first, no notice, nothing that would let anyone treat the request differently. The clock starts at the moment I press withdraw and stops when the coins are spendable in my wallet.
4. Everything published. Transaction ID for the deposit and the withdrawal, the exact timings, the network fee, whether documents were demanded and at what amount. You can check the chain yourself.
The amounts vary — three figures on one test, four on the next. So does the number of bets, and so does the time between deposit and withdrawal.
That is not sloppiness. Varying the amount is the only way to find where the thresholds sit. A book that pays 200 € without a question may demand a passport at 2,000. If every test used the same figure, that line would never show up.
Every record shows its own amount, bet count and holding time, so nothing is hidden behind an average.
| Time to wallet | From pressing withdraw to spendable coins, including network confirmation |
| ID threshold | The amount at which documents were actually demanded — not the stated policy |
| Verification time | How long the check took, and whether the balance was frozen during it |
| Fee behaviour | Whether the house absorbed the network fee, passed it on, or took an extra cut. Calculated from the chain, not from what the cashier claimed |
| Reliability | How many tests ended paid, partially paid, refused, or blocked |
| Recency | When the book was last measured |
Confirmation times, amounts and network fees are read directly from the blockchain and marked as such in each record. Anything typed by hand is marked as typed by hand.
One number in every test has no chain record: the moment I pressed withdraw.
That click happens inside the operator’s interface and leaves no public trace. Everything after it is verifiable — the confirmation, the amount, the fee. The starting point is not.
The honest answer is a screenshot of the withdrawal request with the time visible, filed with every completed test. It is not proof in the way a transaction ID is proof. It is the best that exists, and pretending otherwise would undo the point of this site.
Every book is retested at least quarterly. The five with the most reader traffic are retested monthly, because those are the ones where a change matters to the most people.
A figure that has not been remeasured in 90 days is flagged stale on its page. Not quietly left standing — flagged, so you can see that the number is old.
Books get worse as well as better. A payout time from March says nothing about August.
| After | What happens |
|---|---|
| 48 hours | The test is marked overdue and shows as overdue while it stays open |
| 7 days | I contact support, document the exchange, and file it as an incident on the book’s record |
| 30 days | The test is recorded as refused |
Support is contacted only after the test has already gone overdue. Contacting them earlier would turn an unannounced withdrawal into an announced one, and the measurement would be worthless.
Scores are calculated, not awarded. Every input has a fixed weight, and no operator sees a score before it is published.
| Input | Weight | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Payout speed | 30 % | Median across all tests |
| ID behaviour | 20 % | Measured thresholds and verification times |
| Reliability | 15 % | Share of tests ending paid |
| Licence | 15 % | Jurisdiction, plus whether the number was verified in the register |
| Documented incidents | 10 % | Date, type, source and severity of each entry |
| Bonus value | 10 % | Calculated from wagering requirement, basis, game weighting, max bet and time limit |
Two consequences worth stating plainly.
A book can be excellent at one thing and poor at another, and the score will show both. Fast payouts do not cancel out a regulatory investigation. The breakdown is published on every review page, so you can see which input pulled the number where.
The licence figure distinguishes four states, not two: verified in the register, searched but not found, register unavailable, and not yet checked. A tick box cannot tell “we looked and found nothing” apart from “we have not looked” — and that difference is exactly what matters.
I earn affiliate commission when a reader signs up through a link here. That is what funds the testing, and there is no other revenue.
Three things follow from that, and they are not negotiable.
Commission rate is not an input to the score. It is not in the table above and it never will be.
Every book was funded out of my own wallet before anything was written about it. That includes books I earn nothing from — if a bookmaker is worth measuring, it goes in the ledger regardless of whether there is a deal.
When a partner tests badly, the score drops and the link goes. The book stays on the list with the reasons attached — quietly removing a bad result would be worse than never publishing it. But it loses its “Visit” button and keeps only “Review only”. A recommendation link on a book I would not recommend is exactly the conflict this site exists to avoid.
I do not rank by commission. I do not accept payment for placement, and no operator has ever seen a score before publication.
I do not publish a review without a test behind it. If there is no measurement, there is no page.
I do not average away the bad tests. Every result stays in the record, including the ones that make a book I earn from look worse.
And I do not claim to have tested things I have not. That last one is why this site was rebuilt.
Tell me. The Bitcointalk thread is read daily, and corrections get published rather than quietly fixed.
If a bookmaker has treated you badly — or unexpectedly well — send it over. Reader reports are shown separately from my own measurements and never feed into the score, but they do decide what gets tested next.
Last updated: 26 August 2026