Crypto dice: the brands, licences and clauses

Crypto dice is the one category where our fact library has something specific to offer, and it is not the game. Five of the hundred operator records carry the word dice in the brand name itself, one supplier string carries it too, and every one of those records comes with a licence row, a verification clause and a read date. What none of them comes with is a house edge, a payout curve or a roll distribution, because no file this section may read holds such a field. So this page works the layer it can check: who is licensed as what, under which number, with which clause about documents, read on which day.

The five brands that put crypto dice in their names

Mega Dice, Primedice, DuckDice, Windice and TrustDice all appear as separate records. Read together, the crypto dice licence rows are a small lesson in how little a brand name tells you.

Two of the five hold a licence confirmed in a public register on the day we read it. One holds a number that our scoring file marks as claimed but not confirmed. One has no licence field at all. And the fifth, TrustDice, turns out to hold two: alongside the Curaçao entry under Satoshi Gaming Group N.V., company number 151832, the Anjouan public register carries ALSI-202605020-FI1 for Satoshi Labs Ltd, valid from 15 May 2026 to 14 May 2027. Two registers, two company names one word apart, one brand.

The word also turns up on the supplier side

Two catalogue captures, TG.Casino and CoinCasino, list a supplier string reading DiceLab Tech. That is the only place crypto dice appears as a named producer rather than as a brand, and it demonstrates the limit of catalogue data neatly: we know the string was on the page when we read it, and we know nothing about what it ships.

The same two captures are also where the spelling problem is easiest to see. TG.Casino’s array carries True Labs while other arrays carry TrueLab, TrueLab Games, Truelab and TRUE LABS. Voltent appears as Voltent, VoltEnt and VoltENT. Play’n GO appears in at least three spellings, one of them with a curly apostrophe. Any sentence that counts suppliers is counting strings, which is why the scoring file lists the supplier component among its weights and then places it in the unscored array, where it earns nothing.

Where the ratings land, and why

Our rating runs out of ten across seven components: licence 2.5, verification clarity 2, a published restricted-country list 1.5, coin list 1.5, reach 1.5, no verification at sign-up 1, suppliers 1 but unscored. A record needs at least three components with data before any figure is produced. Run the five crypto dice records through it and the spread is wide enough to be instructive.

• DuckDice — 8.5 of 10, the joint highest in the whole file, on six scored components: full marks for the register-confirmed licence, a published list of 16 refused countries, a verification clause with no figure in it, ten coins and no sign-up verification point.
• Windice — 8.1, also on six components: register-confirmed licence, nine refused countries, verification at clause 15.1, seven coins.
• Primedice — 4.8, held down by 0.8 of 2.5 on the licence, with the note that a Government of Curaçao licence is claimed but not confirmed in a register.
• TrustDice — no rating, with the reason not enough verified facts to rate: only two components carried data, a confirmed licence and nine coins, and the file requires three.
• Mega Dice — no rating, on three components but with no licence data at all.

That spread is the argument for reading a rating’s parts rather than its total. TrustDice has a register-confirmed Curaçao licence and no score; Primedice has a score and an unconfirmed licence. A single number would have inverted the comparison, which is why the file publishes the arithmetic beside it.

Tags on the crypto dice records, and the one that misleads

Each record carries a short tag list taken from the operator’s own pages. Across the five crypto dice records, the tags fall out like this. provably-fair sits on Mega Dice, Primedice and DuckDice. crypto-only sits on Primedice and Windice. live-dealer sits on DuckDice and Windice. original-games sits on DuckDice and TrustDice. sportsbook sits on four of the five, everything except Windice. instant-withdrawal sits on DuckDice alone.

That last tag is the one that needs a warning label, because it is the one a reader is most likely to treat as a promise. It appears on 12 records out of 100, and in every case it records that the operator’s own pages present withdrawals as instant, on the date in the record. It is not a measurement. Nobody here timed a payout and wrote the result into that field, and the field has no room for a duration, a currency or a date of test even if somebody had.

The gap between that tag and an actual timing is the reason this site keeps a separate set of pages for payouts rather than folding them into the tag list. The one record in the entire library that contains anything resembling a processing figure is Vave, whose terms state a maximum processing window of three days at clause 8.1 and describe instalments over up to 30 days for amounts from 50,000 USDT at clause 8.8, read on 25 August 2026. That is a clause, still not a timing, and the difference between the two is the subject of how a payout test is actually set up.

Two further tags across the wider library are worth noting for contrast: vip-program on 37 records and sportsbook on 43, both of which are structural facts about a site rather than claims about money. Tags are a good index and a poor conclusion, and we would rather a reader used them to find a record than to finish an argument.

From email-only to documents before your first deposit

The verification clauses across these records span the whole range this site exists to document, and the extremes sit inside the same category.

Mega Dice’s own pages state that no verification is required, that players are not obliged to submit personal information, and that an email address is all that registration needs. Across the entire hundred-record library, exactly two brands earn the sign-up point for that: Mega Dice and LTC Casino. Two out of a hundred.

At the other end, CryptoGames — Curaçao Gaming Authority OGL/2024/1336/1047, holder MuchGaming B.V., granted 13 August 2025, Active — states that verification is required before the first deposit as a general rule, with further documents possible at any time on a risk basis. It carries the fairness tag and a fifteen-coin list, and it still asks first.

Between those, the ordinary case. DuckDice may ask at any time to establish identity, location and source of funds, section 2. Windice may ask at any time at its sole discretion and may restrict service or withdrawal until identity is determined, clause 15.1, with no monetary threshold stated. Primedice may ask at any time, and adds that every account will be suspended until diligence is complete once a risk-based withdrawal threshold is reached, with the amount not specified. Bitsler — Curaçao OGL/2024/930/0387, Oyine N.V., rating 7.0 — says basic registration needs only an email with minimal checks, then reserves the right to ask for proof of age or identity at any time, clause 4.3.

Read as a set, the pattern is that the discretion clause is nearly universal and the stated figure is rare. Only five records in the entire library state a verification threshold with a clause number attached, and none of the crypto dice brands is among them. The thresholds that do exist are set out in the thresholds where documents start being asked for.

Coin lists, and two traps in them

Coin lists are among the better-populated fields here, and the crypto dice records show both of the failure modes we have learned to look for.

DuckDice’s list runs to ten: BCH, BTC, DASH, ETH, LTC, SOL, TRX, USDT, XMR, XRP. It is one of only two records in the library that list XMR at all, the other being Rakebit. Windice lists seven, TrustDice nine, Primedice none that we could read.

The first trap is our own typing. Mega Dice’s four-coin list reads BTH, ETH, LTC, DOGE. BTH is almost certainly a capture error for BCH, and we leave it visible rather than silently correcting it, because a corrected field with no re-read behind it is a guess wearing a tidy jacket. The second trap is that a ticker is not a rail: TrustDice’s list includes TXT alongside standard tickers, and across the wider library Shuffle lists SHFL and CryptoGames lists PLAY, which are house units rather than settlement networks. Rocketpot’s list is the one that gets it right, splitting USDTE from USDTT — the same token name on two different rails. That distinction is the subject of why a ticker is not a settlement rail.

What we do not print about the game itself

No house edge. No roll distribution. No statement about which multiplier setting returns more over time, and no staking pattern presented as advice. Every one of those is a testable claim that needs a published mathematics sheet and a round log, and our three permitted files contain neither. A crypto dice page that prints a house edge without holding one has copied it, and the copy cannot be traced, which makes it worthless as evidence even when it happens to be right.

What is left is a good deal more useful than it sounds. Two of these five brands have a licence you can look up by number today. One of them has a licence term that expired between our read date and now, which we say plainly rather than quietly refreshing the row. One has two licences under two similar company names. One has none we could read. And precisely two brands in a hundred put in writing that nothing is required at sign-up. Those five statements are worth more to a reader than a paragraph of invented probabilities, and they are the whole of what a crypto dice comparison can honestly rest on here.

Where a payout has actually been recorded rather than described, it sits on its own page: see the payout test page recorded for Mega Dice and the TrustDice payout test record. The full set of records, sorted by what we could verify, starts at the dice brands among the top no KYC casinos.