Crypto Deposits at a UK Casino — The Honest Picture on Anonymity
Available in GBThe phrase “anonymous crypto casino” travels as if it were a single product. In the UK it describes two things that don’t quite meet. Cryptocurrency moves on a public ledger where transactions are visible to anyone with the address; an account at a Gambling Commission licensee requires name, address and date of birth to be verified before the first deposit. The two worlds overlap only at the payment step. A player who wants both — blockchain rails AND an account no operator has read into — does not find it at a licensed UK site. What they find instead is a deposit method with shorter card-style clearance, and an identity check that runs regardless of how the money arrives.
That is the page’s working premise, and the rest of it unpacks it: how the regulator frames the risk, what crypto acceptance actually requires of a licensee, where the responsible-gaming regime bites the same way it does on a Visa deposit, and what the comparison among ten GB-licensed brands looks like when “anonymous crypto support” is a question none of them have answered publicly.
Current as of 23 September 2026 against the Gambling Commission’s public register of gambling businesses.
Table of Contents
What Responsible Gaming Looks Like on a Crypto-Funded Account
The Self-Exclusion Wall Applies to Every Payment Method
GAMSTOP is not a setting a player opts into at one site. It is the national online self-exclusion scheme, mandatory for every Gambling Commission online licence, and any brand a UK player can lawfully use is plugged into it. A self-exclusion of six months, one year or five years runs against the player’s name and address across every licensed operator — a debit card-funded account, an e-wallet-funded account and a crypto-funded account all stop together when GAMSTOP matches them.
The reason this matters on a page about anonymity is that anonymity is sometimes pitched as a way around exactly this kind of system. It is not. GAMSTOP checks against the identity the operator has already verified, so the question of whether the deposit came in via Bitcoin or via a Visa card is irrelevant by the time the check runs. The licence holder that accepted the crypto still has the verified name on file, and the registry that excludes the player still finds it.
Deposit Limits and the £150 Financial Vulnerability Trigger
Since 31 October 2025 an operator must prompt a customer to set a financial limit before the first deposit. That prompt runs on the same flow as the identity check and applies whether the deposit arrives in pounds or in a token. There is no state-set ceiling on deposits themselves; the limit a player sets is theirs to set. What the regulator has imposed is a prompt, not a cap.
Layered on top is the financial vulnerability check, which runs at £150 of net deposits in a rolling 30-day window and uses public-data sources only. The wider financial risk assessment framework has been announced but is not yet in force. The £150 figure is the trigger that has actually taken effect, and the data sources are public, not credit-bureau deep. A player depositing in crypto that converts to £150 net over thirty days reaches the same trigger as a card-paying player at the same total.
Slot Stake Limits — Crypto Does Not Buy a Higher Game-Cycle Stake
The maximum stake per game cycle on an online slot in Great Britain is £5 for players aged 25 and over, and £2 for players aged 18 to 24. Both figures are written into the social responsibility code, both apply to every GB-licensed slot regardless of how the underlying deposit was funded, and the operator’s compliance system cannot be told to relax one for the other. A high-roller case where crypto unblocks a stake tier that card deposits don’t is a fiction. The licence file is the same.
Auto-play is banned, a spin may not complete faster than 2.5 seconds, and losses disguised as wins are banned across the same product surface. None of those are configurable per payment method.
How Anonymous a Crypto Deposit Really Is
The Ledger Is Public, the Account Is Not
Bitcoin’s design is a public ledger: every transaction is recorded on-chain and visible to anyone who holds the sending or receiving address. That property is the opposite of privacy from a public observer’s point of view. Pseudonymity is the more accurate word — an address is a string, but the chain of transactions that touches it can be reconstructed and, given one real-world link, attributed.
The “anonymous” in “anonymous crypto casino” therefore lands somewhere else. It tends to mean either that no card details are shared with the casino (true, when deposit rails are set up that way), or that no bank has the gambling merchant on its statement (true, again, when settlement is in crypto). Both of those are real properties. Neither of them is the same as the casino not knowing who the player is.
What the Licence Requires Before the First Deposit
Since 7 May 2019 every Gambling Commission licensee has been required to verify name, address and date of birth before a first deposit or any play. The check is a condition of the licence, not a feature the player can decline. It runs at the same point regardless of whether the player arrives with pounds, with USDT or with Bitcoin.
That requirement is the single biggest constraint on the “anonymous” reading of the topic. A casino cannot lawfully take a UK customer and not know who they are, because the licence is conditional on the casino knowing. There is no “crypto carve-out” in the social responsibility code. The check sits on the player side, not on the payment side.
Where Crypto Does Move the Picture
What crypto does change is the rail outside the casino’s identity perimeter. A card deposit shares the cardholder’s name with the merchant acquirer and, by the merchant category code, with the cardholder’s bank. A bank transfer carries the account holder’s identity into the casino’s banking trail. A crypto deposit from a self-custody wallet, settled directly into the casino’s on-chain address, leaves the casino’s payment processor holding a wallet transaction rather than a card PAN or a sort code.
That difference is meaningful to a player whose concern is the surface area visible to financial intermediaries. It is not meaningful to a player whose concern is the casino itself knowing who they are — the casino still knows, because the licence requires it.
Bitcoin, BNB and the On-Chain Trail
Bitcoin’s network targets a ten-minute block interval, secures its ledger through proof-of-work, and caps total issuance at 21 million coins. BNB — Binance Coin — launched in July 2017 as an Ethereum-based token, migrated to what is now BNB Smart Chain in 2020, and runs proof-of-stake consensus. Both networks are public ledgers. Both record every transfer permanently. The “anonymous” claim attaches to the wallet owner, not to the ledger — and the wallet owner is exactly what the casino’s identity check is there to verify.
The Ten Licensed Brands — How They Sit on Crypto
Reading the Comparison Table
The table below lists ten GB-licensed operators against the criteria a player comparing crypto options needs. The licence-holder column names the company the Gambling Commission register attaches to the brand. The licence number is the active remote casino operating licence on the same register. The domain-status column reproduces what the register records the brand’s main domain as on 18 September 2026 — active, inactive or white-label — because the status tells a reader something about how directly the licence holder runs the site.
The crypto-support column is the honest one: every entry is an em dash. None of the ten brands publish a public statement on whether they accept cryptocurrency, and the register does not record payment methods. The data simply isn’t there to fill a cell with. What the table can say is that every row is a GB-licensed operator a UK player can lawfully play with, and that none of them is in a position to offer account anonymity on top of that.
| Brand | Licence holder and remote casino licence | Domain status | Crypto deposit support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paddy Power | PPB Games Limited — 039411-R-319335-010 | Active | — |
| Unibet | Platinum Gaming Limited — 045322-R-324275-019 | Active | — |
| Sky Vegas | Bonne Terre Gaming Limited — 065519-R-339675-002 | Active | — |
| kwiff | Eaton Gate Gaming Limited — 044448-R-323408-017 | Active | — |
| bet365 | Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC — 055149-R-331499-004 | Active | — |
| MrQ | Tek Fox Ltd — 060629-R-337532-004 | Active | — |
| Midnite | Dribble Media Limited — 042647-R-321653-022 | Active | — |
| Virgin Games | Gamesys Operations Limited — 038905-R-319430-022 | White Label | — |
| BetVictor | BV Gaming Limited — 039576-R-319370-028 | Active | — |
| Grosvenor Casinos | Rank Interactive (Gibraltar) Limited — 057924-R-334666-005 | Active | — |
A row with a white-label domain — Virgin Games — runs under another company’s licence rather than its own operating account. A player who compares brands by licence holder will read this as a structural rather than a quality difference, and it is: the licence still sits with Gamesys Operations Limited, and the consumer protections the licence carries apply regardless of which skin the player signs into.
Paddy Power — The Large Generalist with the Verified File
Paddy Power is one of the better-known generalist brands on the GB-licensed side, and the Gambling Commission’s register lists Paddy Power as an active domain of account 39411, PPB Games Limited, under remote casino operating licence 039411-R-319335-010. The brand has not published a public statement on cryptocurrency acceptance at the time of writing, and the register does not record payment methods. A player whose interest is anonymity will not find a public answer here — but neither will they find a public denial. The verification file is solid; the crypto question is unanswered.
For a player whose main concern is regulated, mainstream coverage rather than crypto specifically, the brand’s depth of market and licence position carry weight. For a player whose main concern is anonymity at the account level, this brand offers the same wall every other licensed brand offers.
Unibet — International Operator, Domestic Licence
Unibet’s UK site runs as unibet.co.uk, listed as an active domain of account 45322, Platinum Gaming Limited, on remote casino operating licence 045322-R-324275-019. The international Unibet operation runs on a separate licence footprint; the UK-only domain and the GB-licensed operating company are what matter for a player comparing UK-facing sites. On cryptocurrency the public position is silent. The licence is current, the verification is the standard identity check, and the responsible-gaming regime is the same as everywhere else on this list.
The brand suits a player who wants a UK-facing product with an international parent and is unconcerned about crypto payment options. The brand does not suit a player whose plan is to fund with Bitcoin and skip identity verification — the licence forbids that, and Unibet is no exception to it.
Sky Vegas — The Broadcast-Adjacent Casino Brand
Sky Vegas operates as Sky Vegas, an active domain of account 65519, Bonne Terre Gaming Limited, on remote casino operating licence 065519-R-339675-002. The Sky branding brings a television-platform adjacency the other nine do not carry, and the licence footprint sits cleanly inside the GB regime. On crypto acceptance there is no public statement, and the comparison reader should not infer one from the broadcast association either way.
A player who values the brand familiarity of the Sky name and the regulated UK licence has a sound choice here. A player who wants a brand that publishes crypto deposit support has, on the evidence, no GB-licensed casino to choose from.
kwiff — The Small-Market Active Licence
kwiff’s licence footprint is account 44448, Eaton Gate Gaming Limited, on remote casino operating licence 044448-R-323408-017, with kwiff listed as an active domain. It is a smaller brand than the four above it on this list, and the register does not record payment methods, so the crypto question stands unanswered here as it does on every other row. The licence is active; the responsible-gaming regime is the same.
For a player weighing licence position alone, kwiff is in the same set as the others. For a player specifically looking for a small operator that might be more flexible on payment rails, the register offers no evidence to support that inference.
bet365 — The High-Volume Mainstream Brand
bet365 sits as an active domain of account 55149, Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC, on remote casino operating licence 055149-R-331499-004. The brand carries volume on a scale most of this list does not, and the licence is the standard GB remote casino operating licence. On cryptocurrency there is no public position the writer can cite. The brand is mainstream in every sense that word carries; “anonymous crypto support” is not the term the brand has chosen to publish under, and no inference is being drawn here from silence.
A player who values the scale and the regulated licence gets that. A player who wants a brand that openly markets crypto deposits will not find that here, nor, on the evidence, at any other GB-licensed site on the list.
MrQ — The No-Wagering Specialist
MrQ runs as mrq, an active domain of account 60629, Tek Fox Ltd, on remote casino operating licence 060629-R-337532-004. The brand’s distinguishing position on the broader UK market has been the no-wagering-requirement structure on bonuses — which is exactly the kind of structural choice the 10x wagering cap, in force since 19 December 2025, makes more visible. The cap doesn’t change MrQ’s headline position because the headline position was the absence of wagering in the first place; it does change the landscape around it. On cryptocurrency there is no public statement.
For a player who prizes bonus transparency MrQ’s profile is intact. For a player looking for crypto funding, the comparison reader is back to the same em dash as every other row.
Midnite — The Newer Active Licence
Midnite is the newer-looking brand in this set, with midnite an active domain of account 42647, Dribble Media Limited, on remote casino operating licence 042647-R-321653-022. The licence is current; the responsible-gaming regime is the GB regime; on crypto there is no public record. For a player comparing licences by vintage, Midnite is among the more recent in this group. For a player comparing licences by crypto support, every row answers the same way.
The newer-licence framing sometimes gets read as a signal of crypto openness, since crypto-friendly operators tend to launch newer. There is no evidence in the register to support that read on this specific brand.
Virgin Games — The White-Label Position
Virgin Games is the only white-label entry on this table. Virgin Games is listed on the register as a white-label domain of account 38905, Gamesys Operations Limited, on remote casino operating licence 038905-R-319430-022. A white-label site trades under another company’s licence — Gamesys is the operator; the Virgin brand is the surface. Player-facing protections are the same: GAMSTOP, the identity check, the slot stake limits. The licence is held by Gamesys, not by Virgin, and the register records the relationship cleanly.
For a player who specifically wants the licence held by the brand they see at the website, Virgin Games does not satisfy that — Gamesys Operations Limited does. For a player who reads the white-label status as a positive signal of partnership with a known operator, that read is also defensible. Neither reading answers the crypto question, which stands at em dash.
BetVictor — The Long-Established Active Licence
BetVictor runs as betvictor, an active domain of account 39576, BV Gaming Limited, on remote casino operating licence 039576-R-319370-028. The licence has been on the register long enough to be among the older active entries. The brand has not published a crypto position on the evidence available. The verification file is the standard GB file, the responsible-gaming regime is the GB regime, and the comparison reader looking for crypto acceptance is back at the em dash.
A player who values a long-established brand with continuous GB licensing has this row. A player looking for a brand that publishes crypto rails does not.
Grosvenor Casinos — The Land-Based-Adjacent Brand
Grosvenor Casinos sits as Grosvenor Casinos, an active domain of account 57924, Rank Interactive (Gibraltar) Limited, on remote casino operating licence 057924-R-334666-005. The “Gibraltar” in the operating company name refers to where the company is incorporated, not to where the licence is held — the licence is GB, and the gambling in question takes place in Great Britain. The land-based casino brand carries a different consumer surface, and the online product sits cleanly inside the GB regime.
On crypto, again, no public statement. The em dash holds. The brand fits a player who wants the land-based-and-online pairing under one name; it does not fit a player looking for a crypto-publishing brand, because no brand on this list publishes crypto rails.
What the Register Actually Tells a UK Player
How to Read a Remote Casino Licence Number
A remote casino licence number on the Gambling Commission’s public register has the form account-R-number-suffix. The leading six digits repeat the licence holder’s account number; the R marks a remote (online) licence rather than a land-based one; the suffix is a sequential tag the Commission attaches to each licence instance. Anyone reading the number on the register can reconstruct the operator’s account number from it, and can use that account number to look up every other licence that same operator holds. The register is searchable and downloadable in full as CSV or Excel — the data behind this page is from that download, dated 18 September 2026.
The Numbers Behind the Brand List
On 18 September 2026 the Gambling Commission’s public register of gambling businesses listed 139 businesses holding an active remote casino operating licence. The same register’s domain list held 1065 active domain entries and 361 white-label entries. A white-label site is one that trades under another operator’s licence rather than its own — Virgin Games on this list is exactly that. The active-domain count and the licence-holder count are different shapes, and a reader comparing them should know they are. 139 licence holders can run many more domains than 139, and they do.
Why the Register Doesn’t Speak to Payment Methods
The register is a record of who is licensed to take bets from people in Great Britain, not a record of how those bets are funded. Payment-method data lives with each operator’s own cashier, not with the regulator’s licence file. A reader looking up a brand on the register can confirm that it is lawfully licensed; a reader looking up whether that brand accepts Bitcoin cannot learn that from the register. That gap is the reason the comparison table above carries an em dash down the crypto column. It is not a gap the register will close on a future visit — it is a gap the register does not address, because the register does not address payment methods.
The Legal Frame Around Crypto at a UK Casino
What the Commission Says About Virtual Currency
The Gambling Commission classes virtual currency accepted for gambling as “money or money’s worth” — in the same way as a casino chip. The classification carries the same consequence as the chip: an operator that takes it must hold a licence. There is no separate “crypto licence” the regulator issues. There is the standard remote casino operating licence, and the operator accepts crypto on top of it, or does not.
The Commission has also identified three named risks for operators taking digital currencies: anonymity, price volatility, and the history of hacking and theft. Those risks inform the Commission’s expectation that operators run a money-laundering risk assessment specifically for crypto-asset acceptance, and that the assessment be reviewed before any new payment method goes live.
The FCA’s Parallel Role
The FCA became the anti-money-laundering supervisor of UK cryptoasset businesses on 10 January 2020, under the amended Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. UK firms carrying out cryptoasset activities — exchanges, custodial wallet providers, brokers — must register with the FCA under those regulations. The FCA will open applications for authorisation of cryptoasset firms under a new FSMA-based regime on 30 September 2026, with the regime due to start on 25 October 2027. A UK player moving pounds into a regulated cryptoasset business is interacting with an FCA-registered entity; a UK player using that same business to fund a casino is interacting with a Gambling Commission-licensed entity as well. The two regulators look at the same transaction from different seats.
HMRC published its first cryptoassets tax guidance for individuals on 19 December 2018, since expanded into a dedicated Cryptoassets Manual. Disposal of cryptoassets — selling them, swapping them for another token, spending them on goods or services — is a chargeable event for Capital Gains Tax. Receiving them is an Income Tax event in some scenarios. None of this is gambling-tax territory; players pay no tax on gambling winnings in the UK, but they may owe CGT on a cryptoasset disposal that funded the gambling in the first place. The two regimes sit side by side and a player using crypto to deposit is using both.
The Offshore Question
Providing gambling to people in Great Britain without a Gambling Commission licence is an offence under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005. An operator based in Curaçao, Malta, Gibraltar or anywhere else is not exempt from that offence simply by being based elsewhere. The Commission’s enforcement reach includes cease-and-desist notices, search-engine delisting referrals, payment and hosting referrals — but it does not include ISP blocking, and offshore sites do come back under new domains after a takedown.
A player who goes to an unlicensed site is not personally at risk of prosecution; what the player loses is the protective layer the licence carries. No GAMSTOP coverage. No Commission complaints route. No approved ADR. No GB slot stake limits. No £150 financial vulnerability check. The “anonymous” claim that sits at the heart of this page’s topic is more honestly available at an unlicensed site than at a licensed one, because the unlicensed site is not running the identity check the licence requires. The cost of that anonymity is the loss of every protection the licence carries. A player weighing one against the other is making the comparison this page is built around.
The Credit-Card Ban and the Wagering Cap
Credit cards have been banned for gambling since 14 April 2020, including credit-card-funded e-wallet flows. That ban applies at the deposit step regardless of whether the player’s underlying bank balance is in pounds or in crypto. A player cannot route a cryptoasset sale into a credit card and use that card at a GB-licensed casino. The ban sits one step above the casino.
Since 19 December 2025 wagering requirements have been capped at 10x and mixed-product bonuses have been banned. A bonus that asks the player to turn the bonus amount over more than ten times is not lawful at a GB-licensed site. A bonus that mixes a sports bet with casino spins is not lawful either. Both rules apply to every offer a GB licensee runs, regardless of payment method.
What a Bonus Actually Costs Under the 10x Cap
The 10x cap is one of the more concrete rules a player can put a number on. Required turnover at any GB-licensed casino is the bonus amount multiplied by the wagering factor, with a ceiling of ten. Take a £100 bonus: required turnover is £1,000. Take a £50 bonus: required turnover is £500. Take a £200 bonus: required turnover is £2,000. The arithmetic is the same every time, and the result is a band — between £500 and £2,000 of turnover to clear a bonus at the kind of brand this page is reviewing, depending on the offer size.
The cost of clearing that turnover is the casino’s edge applied across the wagered amount. If the player is wagering on a slot at, say, a 96% return, the expected loss over £1,000 of wagering is roughly £40 — that is the casino’s mathematical edge in money the player is statistically likely to give back. The bonus itself is £100, so the player is statistically likely to come out ahead of where they started; the licence file is the protection that keeps the wagering factor at 10x instead of the 30x or 40x structures that offshore sites still publish. The 10x is the rule that makes the bonus arithmetic readable.
Why the Wagering Cap Matters More Than the Bonus Size
A reader looking at a casino offer tends to look at the headline number — £100, £200, £500. The wagering cap is the constraint that gives those numbers their actual cost. A 10x cap on a £100 bonus means £1,000 of required play. A 35x cap on the same £100 bonus means £3,500 of required play — three and a half times the legal maximum at a GB-licensed site. The bonus headline is the same; the cost is not. The cap is the rule that closes the gap.
For a player considering an unlicensed alternative precisely because of its higher bonus numbers, the 10x cap is the line that puts the comparison on honest ground. The licensed brand offers a smaller headline bonus with a capped turnover; the unlicensed brand offers a larger headline bonus with an uncapped turnover. The cost-of-play arithmetic favours the licensed site. The account-anonymity arithmetic favours the unlicensed site. A reader is choosing between two different trades, and the cap is what makes the licensed side of the trade legible.
The Slot Stake Tier and the Game-Cycle Definition
The £5 stake cap for players 25 and over, and £2 for 18-24, is a per-game-cycle figure. The game cycle is one spin on an online slot. A player who stakes £5 per spin and runs a hundred spins is wagering £500 across a hundred game cycles. A player who stakes £2 per spin and runs the same hundred spins is wagering £200 across a hundred game cycles. The stake cap is a per-cycle ceiling, not a per-session or per-day ceiling.
Crypto does not buy a higher tier. Neither does a higher deposit. The stake cap is a licence rule, applied uniformly across the product surface, and the cashier does not see it.
What This Page Adds Up To
The Honest Reading of the Topic
The phrase “anonymous crypto casino” describes a product that does not exist at a GB-licensed site. Cryptocurrency is a payment rail; anonymity is a property of the account. A licensed casino can offer the first without offering the second, and the regulator requires it to not offer the second. The closest a UK player can lawfully come is a deposit method that does not share card or bank details with the casino’s payment processor, against an account the casino has verified to the standard the licence demands.
The ten brands on this page are GB-licensed. They are listed on the Gambling Commission’s register of gambling businesses. Their licence numbers resolve to active remote casino operating licences. None of them publishes cryptocurrency acceptance on the evidence available. A player who wants what the topic promises in full — anonymity at the account layer, crypto at the deposit layer — is choosing between giving up one or giving up the other.
What a Comparison Reader Should Walk Away With
Three things. First, every brand on the comparison list is a GB-licensed operator with an active remote casino licence on the register dated 18 September 2026 — the licence position is uniform across the list and the variance is in brand surface, not in regulatory standing. Second, no brand on the list publishes a crypto-acceptance statement on the evidence the writer could cite, which means the comparison reader should treat the crypto column as a known-unknown rather than as data to choose on. Third, the responsible-gaming regime — GAMSTOP, the £150 vulnerability trigger, the £5/£2 slot stake tier, the 10x wagering cap — applies uniformly and is unaffected by the payment method.
A player who came to this page asking how to play at a UK crypto casino anonymously has the answer: account anonymity is not available at a licensed site, the payment-method anonymity is partial, and the choice between them is the choice between keeping every protection the GB licence carries or trading those protections away.
Frequently Asked Questions
How anonymous is a crypto deposit at a UK-facing casino really?
A crypto deposit hides the card or bank details from the casino’s payment processor — that part is real. It does not hide the player’s name, address and date of birth from the casino itself, because the Gambling Commission requires those to be verified before the first deposit. The account is not anonymous; the payment rail is partially so.
Which cryptocurrencies can typically be deposited at a licensed UK casino?
The Gambling Commission’s public register does not record payment methods, and none of the ten GB-licensed brands in this review publishes a public list of accepted cryptocurrencies on the evidence available. The Commission’s own guidance treats any virtual currency used for gambling as “money or money’s worth”, so a token’s eligibility depends on the operator’s own cashier rather than on a regulator-published roster.
Are withdrawals paid back in cryptocurrency or converted to pounds?
That is a per-operator policy and not a register item. A GB-licensed operator will typically disclose its withdrawal currencies in its own cashier terms. The comparison table above cannot answer this question for any of the ten brands because the register does not carry that data and the brands’ own statements were not in the evidence the writer had to hand.
Does using crypto change the identity checks required before a first deposit?
No. Since 7 May 2019 every Gambling Commission licensee must verify name, address and date of birth before the first deposit or any play, and that requirement applies regardless of whether the deposit arrives in pounds, in Bitcoin or in any other token. The crypto payment method does not reduce the verification step; the licence condition does not allow it to.
Are transaction fees different when depositing with cryptocurrency instead of a card?
A crypto deposit carries the on-chain network fee the underlying blockchain charges — Bitcoin’s proof-of-work network, BNB Smart Chain’s proof-of-stake network, or whichever chain the operator’s cashier settles on. A card deposit carries a different fee structure set by the merchant acquirer and the card scheme. The comparison is operator-specific rather than uniform across the GB-licensed set, and the register does not record either side of it. Players should read the cashier’s fee schedule before committing to either rail.
Must a casino accepting cryptocurrency still hold a Gambling Commission licence to serve UK players?
Yes. The Commission classes virtual currency used for gambling as “money or money’s worth”, which means an operator taking crypto from a GB customer must hold a remote casino operating licence in the same way as an operator taking pounds. There is no separate crypto carve-out, and a Curaçao, Maltese or Gibraltar licence is not a substitute for a Commission licence when the customer is in Great Britain.
Written by the editors at safecasinoguideuk.
