Where every number comes from: on-chain collectors across seven chains, our own bet-feed adapters, the ten-category rubric and its known limits.
On-chain deposit and withdrawal flow for labelled casino wallets across seven chains (Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum, Tron, Solana), indexed by our own collectors — the same data any block explorer shows, aggregated and priced.
Live bets from public operator feeds through our own adapters, normalised to USD with our own FX layer and stored permanently, which is what powers hot-slot heat scores, big-win tiers, player leaderboards and observed payout ratios.
Per-casino RTP builds, cross-checked title by title, because providers ship several RTP configurations of the same slot and the operator picks one.
Bitcoin addresses are in our register but not yet indexed, so BTC flow is absent rather than estimated. Wallet labelling is deliberately conservative, which means our volumes understate rather than overstate. Bet feeds are samples of what operators choose to publish, so counts are exact and ratios indicative.
Nothing here is financial or gambling advice, and no operator can pay for a score, a ranking position or a link.
Every figure on this site comes out of a documented pipeline, which is what makes a correction possible. If a number looks wrong, tell us which figure on which page: we can trace it back to the collector, the wallet label or the bet-feed adapter that produced it. That is a different conversation from a general complaint about a score, and it is the only kind we can act on.
It also means our conclusions are reproducible by someone who does not trust us. The scoring rubric and its weights are published, the wallet addresses we index are published, and every bet-feed source is named — so the disagreement can be about the arithmetic rather than about our good faith.
Where too little is verified, we withhold. Operators we hold too little data on are marked data-limited, kept out of rankings and kept out of the sitemap rather than given a placeholder score, because a near-empty page that exists only to rank is exactly the thing a methodology page should rule out.
The same applies to individual fields. Bitcoin flow is absent rather than estimated because we do not index BTC yet; a slot with no verified RTP shows no RTP instead of a lobby claim; a casino with an unverifiable licence says so. A visible gap is more useful than a confident guess.
Wallet labelling is deliberately conservative: an address enters the register only when on-chain behaviour and public disclosure support it. Bet feeds are samples of what operators choose to broadcast, and most throttle or filter. Both biases push in the same direction, so treat volumes as a floor and coverage as incomplete by design.
No. There is no submission process, no paid review and no appeal. The only way to move a score is to change the behaviour it measures.
Name the page and the figure. Because each number traces to a specific collector or adapter, a specific report can be checked and fixed; a general one cannot.
Almost always incomplete wallet coverage on our side. We would rather report the flow through addresses we can attribute than inflate a total with addresses we merely suspect.