What this site is built from, and who writes it
A comparison built from casinos' own terms and public licence registers, limited to brands whose restricted list leaves out Japan, with every gap left visible.
Written by Rowan Sayer/Last checked:
Compiler of the operator records, working from published terms and licence registers
Written by
Rowan Sayer
Compiler of the operator records, working from published terms and licence registers
Rowan Sayer compiles the operator records behind this site. Most of the job is reading: terms of service, cashier pages, the legal notice in a site's footer and, when a lookup works, the operator's line in a public licence register. For each fact Rowan notes the figure, the clause it comes from and the day it was read.
Deciding who is listed is part of the same reading. A brand appears only when its own restricted-territory list has been read and Japan is not on it. Operators that publish no list are left out, because silence on the question is not evidence that players from Japan are accepted.
Rowan has no account with any operator on the site and has never deposited, withdrawn or contacted support at one, so no page here makes claims about payout speed. What the site offers instead is a record of what each operator has put in writing, with the date it was checked.
The question behind this site is a narrow one: before a reader in Japan sends any money, which crypto casinos have published enough about themselves to be checked? The front-page table answers it, and that list of crypto casinos for Japan is what every other page here supports.
The answers come from paperwork, never from play. Each figure is taken from an operator's terms, its cashier page or a licence register entry, and the reading date is printed on every page. Where the paperwork is silent, the page stays silent too; nobody fills the space with a likely-looking number.
Plenty of sites rank casinos on qualities no outsider can measure. Far fewer tie each statement to a clause a reader can open for themselves. This site was built to be one of the few.
Who gets in, and who is left out
One test decides membership. The operator must publish a list of restricted territories, we must have read it, and Japan must be absent from it. The test is applied before any other judgement about a brand.
Brands whose list names Japan are not ranked; they appear on the exclusions page instead. Brands that publish no list at all appear nowhere, and they make up a large share of the shared library the records are drawn from.
Leaving the silent brands out costs the site breadth, and it is the choice most worth explaining. A brand with no published list has not told anyone that it takes players from Japan; it has told nobody anything. Filing it under a heading about this market would turn a gap in our reading into a promise the brand never made.
How the records were compiled
The records now in use come from a reading done on 26, 27 and 28 August 2026, using operators' terms pages, cashier pages and public licence registers.
We took nothing from other comparison sites: no numbers, no tables, no screenshots. The site argues that an operator's own documents can be checked, and copying somebody else's table would give that argument up at the first step.
Positions are calculated, not awarded: ten checks against each record, fixed weights, a fixed maximum of 10, and a single override that puts any operator whose licence is recorded as revoked below every operator whose licence is not. The ranking method page lists each weight.
Claims you will not find here
No money was used anywhere on this site. We made no deposits, timed no withdrawals and opened no support tickets with any brand listed. That rules out a whole family of claims common in this industry, and we accept the loss: a short list of statements a reader can check is worth more than a long list nobody can.
A missing figure is never reported as a finding. An operator that prints no withdrawal ceiling could still have one, and a missing coin list proves nothing about which coins are refused. Some pages here look thin because the documents behind them are thin.
The site offers no opinion on the law where a reader lives. That question belongs with a qualified adviser in the reader's own country.
How the Curaçao licence lines were read
Curaçao licences reach this site in two shapes. Thirteen operators print a newer OGL number, and for each of them the record links the Certificate of Operation that the Curaçao Gaming Authority hosts on its portal, cert.cga.cw. That page states a status, read between 26 and 28 August 2026: twelve say Active and one, Bets.io, says Revoked.
The authority also issues a PDF register, and for the same licence numbers it can show another date and a status such as ‘Assessment in progress’. What this site prints is the status on the certificate page. When the two official sources disagree, neither is taken as the final word.
Two operators print older /JAZ numbers from the master-licence system that came before the current regime, and no certificate page is attached to those records. Anjouan rows carry what the Anjouan register returned. No line on this site calls a licence verified: it says what a register showed, and on which day.
The Japanese pages
English comes first here and Japanese second, for a practical reason: every document behind every figure on the site is written in English. A Japanese page can summarise an English clause, but it cannot quote a Japanese original that does not exist.
So the Japanese pages carry the same numbers, the same read dates and the same blanks as the English ones, and licence numbers and thresholds keep the form the source uses. Anyone checking a figure will end up at an English document whichever version they started from, and we would rather say so than hide it.
Where the money comes from
The site earns from one commercial partner, Vave. Every outbound button on the site, including the ‘Open site’ buttons in the tables and on review pages, leads through a redirect on this domain to Vave's offer. The redirect is excluded from search indexes, since it only passes readers on to somewhere else, and the Vave block on the front page is labelled as a commercial placement.
The deal decides which offer those buttons open. It has no bearing on the ranking or on any recorded fact, whether a licence number, a clause, a coin or studio count or a register result. An operator's record simply has nowhere to store a commercial deal, which leaves the scoring code nothing to read. That separation is built into the code, not only promised in this paragraph.
Questions people ask
- Who writes this site?
Rowan Sayer, named in the author block on this page. Operator documents and public registers supply the figures, the scoring routine supplies the order, and the prose explains both. No page describes playing at any casino.
- How many operators are compared?
Every brand whose own restricted list was read and does not include Japan. The number moves as records are added or withdrawn, so the table on the front page is always the current count.
- How often is it updated?
Each page shows when its facts were last read; the present records date from 26 to 28 August 2026. A correction is made to the underlying record, so every page that draws on it updates at the same moment.
- Is the site owned by any of the operators?
No. It is an independent comparison, and what it says about each operator comes from documents that operator publishes. Its one commercial relationship, with Vave, is disclosed above.
For the whole register side by side, see the best crypto casinos in Japan on the home page.