Crypto Casino Market Report October 2026: Deposits, Whales and Reserves Tracked Onchain

This report tracks $49.5 billion in onchain deposit volume across 41 crypto casinos, 16 cryptocurrencies and 10 blockchain networks over the trailing 12 months. It is the most detailed set of crypto gambling statistics available from any public source. The data comes from Tanzanite.xyz, an analytics platform that monitors verifiable blockchain transactions flowing into known casino wallet clusters.

Every Tanzanite figure in this report can be checked onchain. In October, the 41 tracked operators took $4.40 billion across 8.43 million deposits, 8.6% less money on 11% more transactions. Stake alone held a 44.4% market share.

The 41 operators tracked here include the largest centralized crypto casinos by deposit volume, such as Stake, Roobet, Rainbet, Duel, Shuffle, Gamdom and BC Game, alongside smaller ones. They do not represent the entire crypto gambling market. Fiat-first online casinos that also accept crypto are excluded, as are other crypto-native casinos outside Tanzanite’s coverage.

Third party estimates of the total crypto casino market range from $250 million to $81.4 billion, because sources measure different things, from gross gaming revenue to B2B software spend, and some publish no method at all. We reference those estimates for context throughout the report, labeled with their source and what each one actually measures. Our own analysis is built entirely on the Tanzanite dataset.

The sections below cover operator rankings and month on month movers, average deposit sizes and how deposit value is distributed, how few wallets actually drive the market, which currencies and blockchains players use, what casinos hold in their hot wallets, and the regulatory shifts reshaping the market. One finding frames the rest of the page: just 4,486 wallets, 0.30% of the 1.51 million that deposited, controlled 66.1% of all tracked volume in October.

Key Findings

All figures below come from Tanzanite.xyz onchain deposit tracking across 41 centralized crypto casinos unless otherwise noted. October 2026 data.

These are the headline numbers. The sections below break down the data behind each one: which operators are growing and which are losing share, how deposit value concentrates at the top of the curve, what currencies and blockchains players actually use, and what hot wallet balances reveal about operator liquidity.

Key Crypto Casino Statistics

Each figure below stands on its own and can be quoted. Please cite the VIP-Grinders Crypto Casino Market Report (October 2026) and link to this page.

Crypto Casino Deposits by Month

The table lists every month in our 12 month series on the same basis as this edition, with BC Game’s ARB deposits removed. Past months can differ slightly from earlier editions, because Tanzanite revises its history and applies new operators to the whole period.

From November 2025 to October 2026, the deposit count rose 32% while volume rose 6%, so the average deposit fell from $650 to $522 and Stake’s share fell from 51.6% to 44.4%. September was the largest month at $4.82 billion and February the smallest at $3.54 billion. October excludes about $47 million of native TRX deposits that Tanzanite did not price.

Download the monthly data as a CSV file, free to use with a link to this page. Reserves are the monthly timeseries reading on the last day of each 30 day window.

Crypto Casino Operator Rankings by Deposit Volume

The rankings below are based entirely on onchain deposit volume tracked by Tanzanite.xyz. Deposit volume measures the total value of cryptocurrency transferred into each casino’s known wallet clusters. It is not gross gaming revenue or wager handle, both of which are multiples of deposits because players wager the same funds repeatedly.

Deposit Volume by Casino: Month on Month Movers

The table shows the top 15 operators by October deposit volume, each one’s market share, the change against September, and a three month rolling average. The rolling column matters more than the monthly one at this scale, because a single month at the tail of the market is often noise rather than direction.

Stake remains the largest crypto casino by onchain deposit volume at $1.95 billion, a 44.4% market share. Its volume fell 13.3% while its deposit count rose 25.8% to 3.95 million, so the average Stake deposit dropped from $717 to $494.

Measured by depositors rather than dollars, its lead is wider still. Wallet counts are the closest verifiable measure of crypto casino traffic, and Stake drew 951,000 depositing wallets in October, more than twice the next nine operators combined. Tanzanite also counted 504,000 first deposits from new wallets at Stake, up 45.5% on September.

Stake’s pattern runs through the whole market this month. Across all 41 operators, volume fell 8.6% while deposit count rose 11.2%, and the average deposit dropped from $635 to $522. It is the reverse of September, when deposits got less frequent and larger.

Roobet held second place at $435.9 million, down 2.1% on a deposit count up 1.9%. Its three month average of $444.1 million makes it the steadiest of the top five.

Volume tells you how much moved. Deposit count tells you how many people moved it. When one rises and the other falls, the casino has not changed size, it has changed customer.

Rainbet is the month’s biggest riser among the top ten. Its volume rose 27.8% to $408.5 million on a deposit count up just 2.6%, lifting it from fourth to third, and its average deposit grew from $296 to $368. Tanzanite’s own insights panel shows the same 27.8% rise.

Duel Casino came in at $258.2 million, down 34.2% from September but 2.6% above August, on a deposit count down 7.2%. Its average deposit eased from $1,591 to $1,128, still the second highest in the top eight.

BC Game took $175.0 million, down 1.6% on a restated September. Tanzanite reports $234.9 million, but $59.9 million of that is the ARB flow covered in the correction above, which a second tracker shows did not reach BC Game. Without it BC Game ranks seventh, with the highest average deposit in the top eight at $1,949.

Further down the top 15, the main moves were:

Gamdom fell 14.2% to $212.2 million in a month when a hot wallet hack on 13 October took the site offline for more than two days. Its deposit count rose 1.1%, so the fall came from smaller deposits rather than fewer of them. Shuffle rose 8.9% to $222.9 million and passed Gamdom for fifth.

Rollbit recorded no priced deposits in October, so 40 of the 41 tracked operators took deposits in both months. Rollbit’s two months add up to $1,037, so the all operator total and the constant panel total round to the same figures, $4.40 billion for October and $4.82 billion for September. We publish both every month because Tanzanite’s coverage has expanded before, and when it does the two will diverge.

Other Tracked Operators (Ranks 16 to 41)

The remaining 26 operators processed $259.6 million between them in October, which is 5.9% of all tracked volume. The three month rolling column is the one to read here, because monthly swings at this scale are frequently noise.

Housebets rose 167% to $18.1 million, and its deposit count rose almost eightfold to 57,000. A second tracker shows the same jump, and most of the extra deposits arrived in one burst of very small transfers, 30,827 of them averaging $29 between 11 and 13 October.

Dicey rose 47.8% to $25.1 million on a flat deposit count, and 500 Casino 29.4% to $26.2 million. BetFury gave back more than half of its September jump, down 33.9% to $27.7 million, and Duelbits fell 28.2% to $21.9 million in the month after its September hack.

Rollbit recorded two deposits worth effectively nothing in October, after 7 worth $1,037 in September and 26,212 worth $11.5 million in August. The likelier explanation remains that Rollbit takes deposits through addresses Tanzanite does not yet track. We treat its figure as a coverage gap rather than a collapse, and will report it as one until the data says otherwise.

Average Deposit Size: Whales vs Mass Market

Deposit volume alone does not reveal what kind of player a casino attracts. A $250 million month could come from 250 players depositing $1 million each or from a million players depositing $250. Dividing volume by deposit count separates the two.

The table covers the 25 operators above $10 million in October volume. Below that threshold, deposit counts are small enough that a handful of transactions distorts the average.

The spread runs from $253 at Solcasino to $23,031 at Casinobet, a factor of 91 between two businesses described by the same two words.

Casinobet took $31.9 million across 1,384 deposits, and two wallets above $1 million account for 99.9% of it. Gamba averaged $6,856 and Cloudbet $4,429, with three $1M+ wallets behind 89.3% of Gamba’s volume and six behind 63.6% of Cloudbet’s.

Averages fell more often than they rose this month. Stake’s dropped 31% to $494 as its deposit count rose 25.8%, and Housebets’ fell 66% to $318 as a burst of small deposits multiplied its count almost eightfold. Duel’s eased 29% to $1,128, BetFury’s 35% and Duelbits’ 33%.

Dicey went the other way, rising 49% to $1,728 on a flat deposit count, and Casinobet’s rose 57% as its count fell 30%. BC Game’s rose 35% to $1,949 and Rainbet’s 25% to $368, while MetaWin’s fell 21% on a count up 28%.

The average deposit is the fastest way to see a whale arrive or leave. Volume moves, count holds, and the average shifts within a single month. It moved by 15% or more at 15 of the 25 largest operators in October, and nine of those moves were downward.

Rainbet remains the mass market anchor at $368 across 1.11 million deposits, second only to Stake by transaction count.

Onchain data shows how much people deposit, not who they are. Our US Gambling Survey 2026 found that 9% of US gamblers have used cryptocurrency to fund gambling, rising to 16.1% among those aged 25 to 34, and SOFTSWISS data from more than 700 brands found that 35% of crypto casino players are women.

Deposit Distribution: Where the Money Actually Sits

The average deposit is useful but it hides the extremes. Tanzanite splits every deposit into six size buckets, which shows how much of a casino’s volume arrives in small transactions and how much arrives in very large ones.

The table below covers the 25 operators above $10 million in October volume, sorted by the share of volume arriving in deposits over $100,000. Each row sums to 100% of that casino’s deposit volume.

Casinobet, Sportsbet.io and Cloudbet are the most top heavy operators in the dataset. At Casinobet, 88.8% of volume arrives in deposits above $100,000 while deposits under $100 account for 0.04%. Sportsbet.io reads 79.2% and Cloudbet 73.2%.

BetFury stays close behind despite a smaller month. Its share of volume arriving in deposits above $100,000 eased from 76.8% to 71.1%, fourth behind Casinobet, Sportsbet.io and Cloudbet.

StakeUS still has the strangest profile. Its $1M+ bucket alone is 38.0% of volume, the highest of any tracked casino, yet 47.9% of its volume still arrives below $10,000 and just 1.8% sits between $10,000 and $100,000.

At the other end, ToshiBet takes just 1.8% of its volume above $100,000 and Solcasino 8.3%. Rainbet has the largest share of small deposits among the ten largest operators, with 6.4% of volume arriving under $100, while its $1M+ share edged up to 10.5%.

What the same data looks like by transaction count

Volume share and transaction share describe completely different things, and the gap between them is the whole point of this section.

Two hundred and thirty six individual deposits moved $500 million into crypto casinos in October. That is about one dollar in every nine across the entire market, arriving in a number of transactions you could list on a single page.

More than two thirds of crypto casino deposits are under $100, and those deposits carry 3.2% of the money. The industry describes itself as a mass market consumer business, and by transaction count that is true. By revenue it is something else entirely.

This is concentration measured one transaction at a time. It understates the real picture, because a wallet that deposits $50,000 twenty times does not appear in the $1M+ bucket at all.

ToshiBet shows it clearly this month. Just 1.8% of its volume arrived in single deposits above $100,000, yet three wallets that each sent it more than $1 million over the month account for 79.6%. The next section measures the same market by wallet instead, and at the $1 million level the answer is nearly four times more concentrated.

Wallet Concentration: How Few Wallets Drive Crypto Casino Volume

Every figure so far has measured individual deposits. This section measures wallets, meaning the total each depositing address sent to a casino across the whole month.

The distinction matters more than it sounds. A wallet that deposits $50,000 twenty times never appears in the $1 million bucket at deposit level, but at wallet level it is a million dollar depositor. Measuring one transaction at a time understates how concentrated this market actually is.

Across the 41 tracked casinos in October, 1.51 million wallets made 7.82 million deposits, an average of 5.2 deposits per wallet. Tanzanite’s wallet panel counts fewer deposits than its headline figure of 8.43 million, mostly because it leaves out native TRX deposits that Tanzanite did not price this month and small XRP transfers, a difference we explain in the methodology.

The Crypto Casino Whale Index

The Whale Index ranks each casino by the share of its deposit volume that comes from wallets holding more than $100,000. It is a VIP-Grinders derived metric, calculated from Tanzanite wallet distribution data, and we publish it monthly. A high reading means most of the casino’s money comes from a small number of high rollers rather than a broad base.

The table covers the 25 operators above $10 million in October volume. Below that threshold a single wallet can swing the result, so those casinos are excluded rather than ranked misleadingly. The final column shows the change against September in percentage points.

The Whale Index column measures wallets. The deposit level column measures individual transactions, and it is there to show the gap.

Every casino is more concentrated at wallet level than at deposit level. The gap averages 29 points and runs from 4.3 at BetFury to 86.2 at ToshiBet. ToshiBet barely registers at deposit level, with 1.8% of volume above $100,000, and is 88% whale money once you total each wallet.

Gamba shows the same effect almost as sharply. Its October deposits mostly arrived between $10,000 and $100,000, putting just 20.4% of volume above $100,000 at deposit level, against 97.8% at wallet level.

That gap is the reason concentration figures built one deposit at a time, as published elsewhere, understate this market. Whales rarely send single transfers of a million dollars. They build million dollar positions out of five figure deposits.

Concentration fell at 12 of the 23 operators we can compare with September. The largest falls were at Duelbits, down 12.3 points, Duel 10.8, BetFury 9.4 and 1WIN 6.3. 500 Casino rose 12.9 points, Cloudbet 7.4 and Rainbet 7.2.

BC Game is marked as revised because its September index of 82.3% included the ARB deposits removed in this edition, so the two months are not comparable. Housebets is new to the table, having been below $10 million in September.

The mass market end is steadier than the top. Deposits under $100 were 65.9% of transactions across the trailing year and 68.6% in October, while the money sent by the largest wallets moved by hundreds of millions of dollars from one month to the next.

When 4,486 wallets out of 1.51 million control two thirds of the money, this is not a mass consumer market with a whale segment. It is a VIP business with a mass market front end. That has consequences for regulation, for marketing spend, and for how honest the industry is about who actually generates the revenue.

Some operators lean on whale money far less. Four of the 25 ranked operators take most of their volume from wallets below $100,000: Duelbits, 500 Casino, MetaWin and Solcasino. 500 Casino sits at 47.7%, up 12.9 points on September, with 25.8% of its volume arriving in single deposits above $100,000.

How Often Crypto Casino Wallets Deposit

Tanzanite shows how many wallets deposit, but not how often each one comes back, so this part uses Fair Gambling data for the 50 crypto casinos it tracks, over the 30 days to 1 November. Each wallet is counted once per casino, so a player using two casinos counts twice.

Which Cryptocurrencies Players Use

Tanzanite tracks 16 cryptocurrencies across all 41 casinos, measuring both deposit volume and deposit count. A currency can dominate by value while ranking far lower by transaction count, and that gap is the clearest signal of who uses it and why.

Stablecoins Control the Majority of Deposit Volume

Tether and USDC together accounted for 78.9% of all deposit volume in October. Adding Dai takes the stablecoin share to 79.1%, up from 75.6% in September and the highest of the 12 months we track.

USDC remains the year’s strongest performer, growing from $581 million in November 2025 to $937 million in October, a rise of 61%. It has held second place without interruption since February. Ethereum fell 16.1% in October to $391 million, its lowest month since June.

Every token above $10 million lost volume in October except Dai, which nearly doubled to $11.8 million on just 1,276 deposits. Solana fell 23.0% to $454 million, and BNB slipped 4.9% to $19.1 million on a deposit count up 34%.

Tron’s native token is left out of the table this month. Tanzanite valued all 285,665 native TRX deposits in October at zero, and a second independent tracker puts them at about $47 million, roughly 1% of the market. USDT sent over the Tron network is not affected and is counted under Tether.

XRP fell 33.1% in October to $46.9 million, now 75% below its December peak of $188 million.

Bitcoin’s native blockchain is not tracked by Tanzanite, which covers 10 chains but not Bitcoin L1, so BTC sent on Bitcoin L1 is excluded from this dataset and wrapped BTC on Ethereum is a small fraction. A second independent tracker that does follow Bitcoin L1 puts native BTC at about 1.5% of October deposit volume. Every stablecoin share figure on this page is therefore overstated, but only slightly.

This aligns with broader industry data. SOFTSWISS, drawing on more than 500 partner brands, reported Bitcoin’s share of crypto gambling bets falling more than 17 percentage points between 2023 and 2024, with Tether the largest gainer.

Deposit Count by Currency: Which Crypto Has the Most Transactions

Tether leads by transaction count as well as by value. Over the trailing 12 months it processed 23.4 million deposits against Solana’s 18.4 million, a gap of 27%. Our list of Tether casinos compares the sites that accept it.

The BNB anomaly has now run for three months. BNB recorded 1.20 million deposits in October, up 33.9% and third among all tokens by transaction count, while carrying 0.4% of volume at an average of $16.

USDC has now led Tether on value per deposit for three editions running, at $1,137 against $964 in October. Both averages fell this month, Tether’s by 19% and USDC’s by 14%.

Deposit Size by Currency: Which Tokens Whales Use

Applying the same wallet analysis to currencies rather than casinos answers a question the volume table cannot. Stablecoins dominate this market, but that is a result rather than an explanation. The distribution data shows why.

The table covers the seven tokens above $10 million in October volume, ranked by the share of volume held in wallets above $100,000.

Stablecoins are the whale rails. USDC holds 71.1% of its volume in wallets above $100,000 and Tether 70.6%. Solana sits at 35.3% and BNB at 33.5%.

Dai tops the table at 82.5%, but on $11.8 million of volume three wallets above $1 million are enough to put it there. It describes a handful of large holders, not how Dai users behave.

The concentration is extreme at the very top. 250 Tether wallets sent $1.15 billion and 112 USDC wallets sent $445 million. Between them, 362 wallets account for 36% of everything deposited across the tracked market in October.

That reframes the stablecoin story. The usual explanation is that players prefer a dollar peg because it removes price volatility, which is true and also incomplete. Stablecoins are 79% of deposit volume largely because whales use them, and whales are two thirds of the market.

When transaction counts mislead

BNB recorded 1.17 million deposits under $100 in October, carrying $1.84 million between them. That is an average of $1.57 per deposit, and they came from 580,000 separate wallets.

That works out at 2.0 deposits per wallet. For comparison, depositors under $100 average 2.7 deposits per wallet on Tether, 4.3 on Ethereum and 8.6 on Solana.

XRP shows the opposite problem. Its 3,395 depositing wallets under $100 sent 192,614 deposits between them, 57 each, which more likely reflects exchange addresses shared by many users than 3,395 individual players.

The BNB pattern has now held for three months: hundreds of thousands of wallets each sent one or two transactions worth under two dollars and stopped, which looks like airdrop farming, faucet activity or automated wallets rather than gambling. Those transfers are 15.0% of the deposits the distribution panel counts but 0.04% of the volume, so we report them and keep them out of any reading of player behavior.

Strip those transfers out and the October market processed 6.65 million deposits rather than 7.82 million on the panel’s count. Every volume figure on this page is unaffected.

Transaction counts are the easiest number in this industry to inflate and the hardest to interpret. One million deposits averaging two dollars is not a million players. This is why we publish volume, count and wallet data side by side rather than picking whichever tells the better story.

Blockchain Networks Powering Crypto Gambling

Tanzanite tracks deposits across 10 blockchain networks. The distinction between a token and a chain matters throughout this section. Tether is a token that runs on several chains, so a player can deposit USDT via Ethereum, Tron, Solana or BSC, and the chain figures count the network carrying the transaction rather than the asset being sent.

Chain totals are therefore at least as large as the token of the same name, and usually much larger. Ethereum the chain settled $1.64 billion in October, while Ethereum the token accounted for $391 million.

Ethereum and Tron: The Two Largest Settlement Chains

Ethereum settled $1.64 billion in October against Tron’s $1.30 billion. Ethereum has led for five consecutive months, and the gap doubled from $172 million in September to $346 million as Tron fell 13.5% against Ethereum’s 1.7%.

Part of Tron’s fall is the native TRX that Tanzanite did not price this month, worth about $47 million on a second tracker’s count. Even with TRX added back to both months, the gap more than doubled, from about $130 million to about $300 million.

The lead has changed hands four times across the last 12 months. Tron was ahead in December and January, and again in April and May. Ethereum has held it since June.

Tron peaked at $1.70 billion in December and is now 24% below that level, or about 21% below once the unpriced TRX is added back. Its headline deposit count fell 10.2% to 611,000, and 285,665 of those are native TRX deposits valued at zero, so every dollar Tanzanite counted on Tron in October arrived as USDT.

That leaves Tron with the highest average deposit of any major chain at $2,124, nearly double Ethereum’s $1,128. Counting only the USDT deposits Tanzanite priced, it rises to $3,991. The 1,780 Tron deposits above $100,000 carried 49.7% of everything the chain settled.

Tron was never a mass market chain. It is where large stablecoin transfers settle, because fees are low and confirmation is fast, and the wallet data supports that reading: 133 wallets above $1 million hold 54.4% of all Tron volume.

Between them the two chains carry 66.8% of the market, down from 71.5% in November 2025 as Solana, BSC and Base absorbed share.

Which Blockchain Processes the Most Casino Deposits

Volume and transaction count give completely different answers. BSC processed 2.92 million deposits in October, more than any other chain, ahead of Solana at 2.33 million and Ethereum at 1.46 million.

BSC has led on deposit count since July and widened that lead this month. Its count rose 31.1% as BNB’s tiny deposits kept growing, while Solana’s rose 11.3%, so the gap grew from about 133,000 deposits to 587,000.

The dust keeps growing. BNB’s 1.17 million deposits under $100, at about $1.57 each, make up 40% of BSC’s count.

BSC carries 45.0% of every deposit under $100 in the entire tracked market. At a $166 average it remains the low value rail regardless of the dust.

Solana is the mass market chain by any honest reading. It settled $774 million across 2.33 million deposits at a $333 average, with 16.7% of its volume arriving above $100,000, the lowest of any major chain. We compare the sites that accept it in our list of Solana casinos.

Smaller Networks: Base, Polygon, Arbitrum and TON

Arbitrum is back to its usual size once BC Game’s ARB deposits are removed. It settled $4.3 million in October against a restated $2.9 million in September, in line with the $2.9 million to $11.1 million it has carried every month since December.

Base rose 38.2% to $39.9 million, its best month since March, but still sits 40% below its February peak of $66.6 million.

Polygon was flat at $104.5 million, 26% below its June peak of $140.5 million. TON fell 6.1% to $4.85 million, its second monthly fall in a row.

Deposit Size by Chain: Settlement Rails and Retail Rails

Applying the wallet analysis to chains splits the ten networks into two clear groups.

Casino Financial Health: Hot Wallet Balances

Tanzanite tracks the value of cryptocurrency held in each casino’s known hot wallet addresses across all ten chains. Hot wallet balances are not total company reserves. They are the funds an operator keeps immediately available for player withdrawals and day to day liquidity.

A casino with high deposit volume and low visible reserves may simply be sweeping funds to cold storage quickly. Neither pattern is inherently good or bad. What the data shows clearly is the direction each operator is moving.

Hot Wallet Balances by Casino

The 41 tracked operators hold $346.7 million in visible hot wallet balances on Tanzanite’s live snapshot, taken on 1 November, which is the source for every figure in this table. That is down from $389.5 million on the 1 October snapshot, or $382.8 million without BC Game’s ARB.

The monthly timeseries used in the trend section below reads $324.4 million at the end of October, and operator balances differ between the two. The top five account for $229.8 million of the snapshot total, and the bottom 20 hold $12.9 million between them.

The percentage column is a liquidity ratio, not a solvency measure. It shows how much sits in trackable wallets against how much flowed through that casino during the month.

Rainbet still holds the largest balance at $92.8 million, 22.7% of its October deposits. Stake’s snapshot balance rose from $62.3 million to $66.2 million, spread across six chains, which is just 3.4% of its monthly deposit flow.

The ratio rises sharply further down the table. ShuffleUS holds 116% of its October deposits, Solcasino 44.3%, Dicey 23.9% and Duelbits, just outside the table, 23.3%. Smaller operators keep proportionally more of their flow visible onchain, which is what you would expect from businesses without established cold storage operations.

BC Game, Cloudbet and Solcasino hold reserves across all ten tracked chains. Dicey holds across two.

Duelbits was hacked for about $7 million on 24 September, with attackers draining its hot wallets on at least four chains, and most of the funds were still unrecovered in late October. Its live snapshot now reads $5.09 million, down from $7.19 million on 1 October, while the monthly timeseries shows $2.09 million. The two sources still disagree too widely for us to say how far its wallets have been refilled.

Gamdom was hacked on 13 October, with attackers draining its hot wallets on five chains in about an hour and the site offline for more than two days. Its founder puts the loss at just over $3 million, while onchain researchers count about $4.2 million. Gamdom’s live snapshot reads $3.47 million across five chains, 1.6% of its October deposits.

Hot wallets are also where most crypto casino thefts happen, and our tracker of hot wallet thefts at crypto casinos lists every documented case since 2014.

Reserve Trend: How Casino Balances Have Moved

Every figure in this section comes from the monthly timeseries rather than the live snapshot used in the table above, so operator balances here will not match it.

Across the 41 operators, visible reserves fell 3.6% in October, from a restated $336.5 million to $324.4 million, leaving them 31% above their early December level of $247.1 million. That December reading is the low point of the 12 months, and the peak was $391.7 million on 1 September.

Measured against deposit flow, reserves have run between 6.0% and 9.7% of monthly deposit volume across the year. They now sit at 7.4% on the timeseries basis, up from 7.0% in September, because deposits fell 8.6% while balances fell 3.6%.

The same ratio on the snapshot reads 7.9%. That ratio is the cleanest single indicator of market wide liquidity and we will track it every month.

There was no single driver this month. Rainbet drew down $4.9 million and StakeUS $2.7 million to $16.2 million, while Stake held almost flat at $128.1 million, still $47.6 million below its series high of $175.6 million on 1 September. 1WIN eased to $14.7 million, still almost four times its early December level of $3.78 million.

Rainbet fell 9.0% to $49.0 million, below its early July peak of $56.7 million. Roobet slipped to $18.6 million, 16% below its early December level of $22.0 million.

Rollbit: how a reserve drawdown looks onchain

Rollbit held $28.9 million in early December 2025 and $4.09 million at the end of October, a fall of 86%. The path there matters more than the endpoint.

Its balance dropped below $10 million in three separate windows. Twice it recovered fully, from $8.61 million in early February back to $20.7 million by early April, and from $6.52 million in early May back to $18.1 million by early July.

The third drawdown has stopped deepening, and the timeseries has barely moved from $4.1 million since 1 September while Rollbit’s tracked deposits fell to two in October. That looks more like a change in how it routes deposits, or a series that has stopped updating, than a run on its wallets. The live snapshot reads just $145,000, so we treat both Rollbit figures with caution until the two sources agree again.

Reserve Composition: What Casinos Actually Hold

Knowing how much a casino holds is one question. What it holds is a different one, and the answer is not what the deposit data would lead you to expect.

Players deposit stablecoins. Casinos do not hold them in the same proportion. Tether, USDC and Dai account for 79.1% of October deposit volume and 61.5% of hot wallet reserves, a gap of 17.6 points.

Tether is 57.6% of what arrives and 33.2% of what is held. Ethereum and Solana run the other way, held at 1.51 and 1.10 times their deposit weight. Tron’s native token has no deposit share in the table because Tanzanite did not price TRX deposits this month.

A player who deposits USDT is owed dollars. If an operator converts that into ETH or SOL and the market falls 20%, the liability does not move and the asset covering it does. That is an unhedged position on money the casino does not own.

This is not evidence of wrongdoing and it may well be deliberate treasury policy. It is a risk that has never been measurable before, and it now is.

The spread across operators is wide. Duelbits holds 39.5% of its balance in stablecoins, most of the rest in ETH, and BC Game 32.9%, with $6.9 million in SOL, $5.1 million in BNB and $4.8 million in ETH. Stake reads 51.7% and StakeUS 66.3%, while at the other end 1WIN holds 89.4%, BetFury 77.8% and Yeet 77.4%, the highest among operators holding more than $2 million.

Almost four fifths of the money arriving at crypto casinos is pegged to the dollar. Barely three fifths of what they hold against it is. Nobody in this industry publishes that comparison, and it is the single most useful thing onchain data can tell you about operator risk.

Chain Diversification: Where Reserves Actually Sit

Reserves concentrate differently from deposits. Ethereum holds 29.0% of all tracked balances, Solana 22.3%, BSC 14.9% and Tron 13.8%.

Tron is the outlier and it confirms what the deposit data showed. It carries 29.5% of deposit volume and holds 13.8% of reserves, equal to just 3.7% of a single month’s flow on that chain. Money arrives on Tron and leaves almost immediately.

Ethereum holds 6.1% of its monthly flow, Solana 10.0% and BSC 10.7%. Polygon holds 29.6% and XRP 30.0%, both far above their deposit weight, which is what a chain used for storage rather than settlement looks like.

Three individual positions stand out. Rainbet holds $8.05 million on Base, 64% of that chain’s total, and $4.28 million on Arbitrum, 77% of every Arbitrum reserve once BC Game’s ARB is removed. Cloudbet holds $1.55 million on Avalanche, 53% of the market total.

Centralized vs Fully Onchain Casinos

Tanzanite tracks three fully decentralized onchain casinos alongside the 41 centralized operators. These run entirely on Solana smart contracts, so players interact with the protocol directly rather than depositing into a company wallet, and game outcomes, payouts and house revenue are all verifiable onchain in real time, a step beyond the provably fair checks centralized casinos offer.

Our guide to the three types of crypto casino shows how an onchain casino differs from the crypto only and hybrid sites where most players start.

Two of the three still report activity, though Solpot nearly stopped in October. Luck.io shut down in April 2026.

Onchain Casino Performance: Bet Volume, GGR and Players

The sector is smaller than a rounding error. Combined October bet volume across both surviving platforms was $7.3 million against $4.40 billion in centralized deposits, and bet volume is handle rather than deposits, so the real gap is wider still. Stake alone processed 266 times the sector’s entire monthly wagering.

What happened here is not that decentralized gambling failed everywhere at once. One platform was the sector, and it stopped.

Luck.io accounted for 69% of trailing year bet volume and 51% of gross gaming revenue before it shut down. Strip it out and the two survivors did $200 million across the year, an average of $16.6 million a month.

Both remaining platforms shrank again in October. Solpump’s bet volume fell 25% while its revenue fell 48%, because it kept 2.93% of bets against 4.20% in September, and it now sits at 51% of its twelve month average. Solpot fell 88% across bet volume and revenue.

Solpot is the bigger question. Its bets ran at about $40,000 every three days at the start of October, fell below $600 per three days after 10 October, and Tanzanite’s data for it ends in the three days to 25 October. We cannot yet tell whether Solpot is winding down or Tanzanite has lost track of it, and will report which next month.

The house edge data supports one clear conclusion. Across the trailing year, Luck.io ran an implied edge of 2.31% against Solpump’s 5.03% and Solpot’s 5.00%.

The platform that charged players the least is the one that no longer exists. That is not proof of causation, but a protocol taking less than half what its competitors take, with no marketing arm and no balance sheet behind it, has very little room when volume falls.

A sector that loses more than two thirds of itself when one smart contract stops is not a market. It is a proof of concept with a single point of failure, and that is the more interesting finding than any growth rate.

How Big Is the Crypto Casino Market?

There is no audited figure for the size of the crypto gambling market, and the two most cited revenue estimates disagree by a factor of eight. That gap is not a rounding error. It is the result of different sources measuring different things and the results being repeated under the same label.

Why Published Market Sizes Range from $250M to $81B

The most widely cited number is $81.4 billion in gross gaming revenue for 2024, produced by Yield Sec and reported by the Financial Times in April 2025. It has since been repeated by Cointelegraph, Forbes, SiGMA World and dozens of others, almost always described as crypto casino revenue.

It does not measure crypto casinos. In July 2026, Gambling Insider put the figure to Yield Sec founder Ismail Vali, who confirmed it bundles crypto sports betting, crypto prediction markets and financial products alongside casino. The casino-only component is roughly $48 billion.

The prediction market component is substantial and growing. Our monthly Prediction Markets Report tracked a record $121.28 billion in event contract trading volume in October 2026 across 10 platforms, though notional trading volume and gross gaming revenue are not comparable measures.

The full workings have never been published, so there is no model to inspect and no wallet set to reproduce. Yield Sec stands by the number.

The $250 million figure at the bottom of that table and the $81.4 billion at the top are 326 times apart. The smaller one comes from a statistics roundup that gives no source or method, and it is less than Rainbet alone took in deposits in October. Neither describes what most people mean by the crypto casino market.

The closest independent figure to ours comes from TRM Labs, a blockchain analytics firm, which puts onchain gambling volume at $51 billion for 2025 across the gambling services it tracks. That is a calendar year rather than our trailing 12 months and a wider set of platforms, but it lands within 3% of the $49.5 billion this report counts.

What our own data implies

The industry convention for converting deposits into revenue is the ratio published by Tanzanite, derived from Stake’s publicly observable figures: roughly 37 cents of gross gaming revenue per dollar deposited.

Applied to the $49.5 billion this report tracks across 41 operators, that implies $18.3 billion in trailing 12 month gross gaming revenue, an average of $1.5 billion a month.

That sits between Tanzanite’s $10 to $11 billion for 2024 across 20 casinos and Yield Sec’s $48 billion casino-only component. Our operator coverage is 3.4 times Gambling Insider’s and our deposit total is 2.18 times theirs, which is what you would expect from tracking 41 casinos rather than 12.

The $81.4 billion figure has been repeated for a year and a half as crypto casino revenue. It was never that. Every number in this report can be checked against a public blockchain, which is the only real answer to a market where the headline figure came from a model nobody has seen.

The Broader Online Gambling Context

Surgence Labs puts global online gambling gross gaming revenue, across every vertical and every currency, at around $103 billion for 2025. If crypto gambling alone were $81.4 billion, crypto would account for around 79% of all online gambling worldwide, which nobody in the industry believes.

Our implied figure of $18.3 billion would put crypto casinos at roughly 17.8% of the global online gambling market. That sits below the 30% of bets SOFTSWISS recorded in crypto across 700+ partner brands in early 2023, and above the 6% to 12% Surgence Labs estimates.

For a full breakdown of how crypto fits within the wider casino sector, see our Casino Statistics 2026 overview.

One further check on the size of the long tail. Gambling Insider examined five smaller crypto casinos and found they took $151 million combined across 2025, less than one percent of Stake alone. Bitquery’s Ethereum data points the same way, with Stake drawing 78% of active onchain gamblers across the six largest labeled casinos in April 2026.

The case for the largest estimates rests on tens of thousands of small operators making up the difference. If a typical tail casino handles tens of millions a year rather than billions, that arithmetic does not work.

Regulation Reshaping the Crypto Casino Market

Six regulatory developments are changing how crypto casinos operate, where they can advertise and which players they can serve. The pace picked up sharply through 2026. Curaçao completed its licensing overhaul, the number of US states banning sweepstakes casinos rose to fourteen, the UK nearly doubled its tax on online casino revenue, and Brazil shut its licensed online market down.

Almost none of it is visible in the deposit data yet. Where it is, we say so.

Curaçao’s LOK Transition: New Licensing Standards

Most of the casinos tracked in this report operate under Curaçao jurisdiction. For decades that meant four private master license holders issuing sub-licenses with minimal oversight, and an operator could go live for little more than a registration fee.

That system no longer exists. The National Ordinance on Games of Chance, known as the LOK, came into force on 24 December 2024. The last master license expired at the end of January 2025, and the Curaçao Gaming Authority now issues every license directly as an independent public body.

The transition is largely complete. Stake and Cloudbet hold direct CGA licenses, while BC Game left Curaçao in December 2024 and now operates under an Anjouan license. Yolo Group, parent of Sportsbet.io, said in September 2025 it would leave grey markets and fold Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino into a single regulated brand, with their Curaçao licenses expected to be wound down.

In June 2026 the CGA published crypto specific rules covering wallet segregation, transaction monitoring and blockchain based AML, with a mid 2027 implementation deadline. Game suppliers face an earlier date: supplier registration opened in October and becomes enforceable on 24 December 2026.

A year earlier, in July 2025, the regulator began issuing cease and desist notices to Curaçao-registered companies operating under foreign licenses, closing a workaround where companies incorporated locally to imply CGA oversight they did not have.

In September the regulator’s own files became the story. A security researcher accessed the CGA’s licensing portal, and from 22 September the Dutch outlet Follow the Money and partner newsrooms in Germany, Norway, Sweden and Austria began publishing what the files show about roughly 650 licensed companies and 800 owners. The CGA called the access a serious breach and acknowledged it had granted some licenses while ownership questions were still open, citing the transition to the new law.

In October the CGA said the breached portal will not be returned to service. It now says the unlawful access ran from December 2025 to September 2026, moved licensees to a temporary portal from 19 October while it builds a replacement in house, and is considering civil legal action.

Stake’s operating company, Medium Rare N.V., is one of those cases. According to the leaked files as reported by Follow the Money, regulators questioned whether its registered owner was the sole owner, given large loans and payments to entities linked to Stake’s publicly known founders, and licensed it while that review was unresolved. The CGA register dated 21 September still lists Medium Rare N.V. as under assessment, and no license has been suspended as a result so far.

For players, a Curaçao license still carries more weight than it did two years ago, though the leak shows how much ownership checking was unfinished when licenses were issued. For operators, the cost of holding one has risen, and some have chosen Anjouan instead, a jurisdiction with far less regulatory infrastructure behind it.

US Sweepstakes Casino Crackdown Escalates

Sweepstakes casinos use dual-currency models to sit between social gaming and real money gambling. States have spent 2025 and 2026 closing that gap, and the count has moved well past where it stood at the start of the year.

The Louisiana and Oklahoma provisions reaching promoters are the ones worth watching. Most sweepstakes legislation targets operators and payment processors. Extending liability to anyone knowingly promoting the games changes the risk calculation for publishers, affiliates and advertising networks in a way the earlier state bans did not.

Enforcement has also moved up the supply chain. A Los Angeles lawsuit named game suppliers Evolution, Pragmatic Play and Hacksaw Gaming as co-defendants alongside the operator of Stake.us. A New York case named Coinbase as a payment facilitator.

In August 2025 all 50 state attorneys general asked the Department of Justice to step up enforcement against illegal offshore gambling.

Florida took the most direct action yet against a crypto operator. In August its attorney general sued Stake and VGW, along with payment processors for both. In late September he wrote to Google, Meta, Reddit, Snap and TikTok demanding written confirmation by 23 October of the steps they have taken to stop advertising sweepstakes casinos, Stake among them, to Florida residents.

No response from the platforms had been made public by the end of October, and no court has yet ruled on the lawsuits.

The deposit data does not confirm it yet. StakeUS took $93.6 million in October, up 1.8% on September, and its deposit count rose 13.8%, reversing September’s fall. Its snapshot reserves fell again, from $18.9 million to $13.6 million.

UK Remote Gaming Duty Rose to 40%

The UK’s Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% of gross gaming yield on 1 April 2026, close to a doubling and the largest change to British gambling taxation in years. A further remote betting duty of 25% follows in April 2027.

The detail that matters for crypto casinos is that the duty follows the customer rather than the license. Where an operator is incorporated makes no difference: if the player usually lives in the UK, the duty applies.

That cuts both ways. It removes the offshore arbitrage that a crypto-native operator might otherwise exploit, and it squeezes margins hard enough at licensed operators that some UK players have started looking at platforms outside the licensing system entirely. Entain and Evoke have both said promotions and marketing were among the first costs cut.

Brazil Banned Crypto Payments for Gambling

Brazil’s regulated online betting market launched on 1 January 2025 under Normative Ordinance No. 615/2024, which explicitly prohibits cryptocurrency as a payment method. All deposits and withdrawals had to move through institutions authorized by the Central Bank of Brazil.

The direct volume impact was small. H2 Gambling Capital estimated crypto accounted for only 0.7% of Brazilian gambling transactions before the crypto ban. Brazil chose to exclude crypto entirely rather than regulate it alongside fiat, in one of the largest gambling populations in the world.

That regulated market has now been shut down. On 25 September President Lula signed a provisional measure banning fixed odds sports betting and online casino games, with deposits stopped on publication, sites blocked from 6 October and operator authorizations extinguished on 25 October.

Congress has until 23 November to vote, extended automatically by 60 days, and 99 amendments had been filed by 13 October, some of them keeping sports betting and banning only online casino. Sector associations have also asked the Supreme Court to suspend the measure.

While it stands, Brazilian players have no licensed online option, only the offshore sites, crypto casinos among them, that the regulated market was built to replace. Tanzanite data does not show where depositors live, so we cannot yet measure whether that demand moves to the casinos tracked here.

Google Reclassified Crypto Wagering as Real Money Gambling

In October 2025 Google updated its Gambling and Games advertising policy, reclassifying sweepstakes casinos as real money gambling and extending the definition to games using virtual currencies with real world value.

That brought crypto casino advertising under the same rules as traditional online casinos. Operators must hold valid licenses in the markets they target, and ads are blocked where online gambling is prohibited. In September 2026 Google went further, extending its certification requirements to every gambling and games category, including social casino and prize games.

The effect was to push acquisition spend toward channels Google does not control: influencer partnerships, Telegram, X and affiliate networks. Operators with their own distribution absorbed it more easily, which is part of why the Stake founders’ ownership of Kick matters commercially.

Offshore Crypto Casinos Face US Legal Action

Beyond the sweepstakes bans, multiple states have filed or are preparing action against offshore crypto casinos serving US residents without local licenses. The legal theory is straightforward: accepting deposits from a state where unlicensed online gambling is illegal breaks that state’s law regardless of where the company sits.

Class actions against Stake.us have been filed in at least nine states, alleging the sweepstakes model constitutes illegal gambling and that players can recover losses. A ruling in any one of them would set a precedent for every similar platform. One federal court has since ruled on procedure: on 16 October a US District Court confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Stake.us and refused to vacate it, deciding who hears the dispute rather than whether the games are legal.

Geo-blocking is a weaker defense than it was, because the actions increasingly target payment processors and game suppliers rather than only the platform.

FAQs

Methodology & Data Sources

This report combines primary onchain data from Tanzanite.xyz with secondary market estimates from industry analysts, research firms and regulators. Each section below states what a source measures, how we use it, and where it can be checked.

Primary Data: Tanzanite.xyz

Every operator ranking, deposit volume, deposit count, average deposit, distribution table, wallet figure, hot wallet balance and onchain casino metric in this report comes from Tanzanite.xyz, unless the text attributes it to Fair Gambling, the second tracker described below. Tanzanite monitors cryptocurrency moving into and out of known wallet clusters belonging to 41 centralized crypto casinos and three fully decentralized ones.

Derived Metrics

Several figures here are calculated by VIP-Grinders from Tanzanite’s raw data rather than reported by the platform.

Editorial Independence

VIP-Grinders operates affiliate relationships with some of the operators listed in this report, disclosed on their individual review pages and in our casino bonus codes section. No operator pays for inclusion in this dataset, for its position in any ranking, or for how it is described. Rankings are determined solely by onchain deposit volume as tracked by Tanzanite.xyz.

We have no commercial relationship with Tanzanite.xyz or Fair Gambling. Tanzanite is supported by Stake.com, which is the largest operator in this dataset, and we state that wherever their data carries an argument rather than just a number.

Where our findings contradict something we previously published, we say so in the text rather than quietly restating. This edition corrects two findings from the September edition, flagged under Key Findings: BC Game’s ARB deposits on Arbitrum, which a second tracker shows did not reach BC Game, and the Tron transfers we described as near zero, which were native TRX deposits Tanzanite did not price. Restating September on the same basis, with its window ending on 1 October and the ARB flow removed, moves its market total from $4.97 billion to $4.82 billion.

Secondary Sources

Market sizing, industry context, regulatory information and our second source check come from the sources below. These are not our data. We cite them with their source and flag where methodologies differ.

Limitations

Known limitations readers should weigh when interpreting anything on this page.

Update Schedule

This report is part of the VIP-Grinders research program and is updated monthly. Each edition refreshes every Tanzanite dataset, recalculates the derived metrics, and notes any change in secondary estimates or regulation.

Section headings on this page are fixed and will not change between editions, so any link to a specific section will keep working. Figures, findings and commentary change every month.

For how crypto poker fits into the wider online poker landscape, see our Online Poker Traffic Report, which ranks 36 networks by cash game players and tournament entries every month.

If you are a journalist, researcher or analyst using data from this report, contact João Mourato at VIP-Grinders for verification, additional context or access to the underlying tables.

How to Cite This Report

Suggested citation: VIP-Grinders. Crypto Casino Market Report. Available at: https://www.vip-grinders.com/research/crypto-casino-market-report/

Figures are free to cite with a link to this page. Please include the month shown in the report title with any figure you quote, as the data changes every edition.