Who we are
Casino Decoded is an independent editorial team founded in 2025. Our four editors each cover a single market (RU, PL, EN, AZ), so each review is grounded in local payment systems, regulatory context, and player expectations rather than translated boilerplate. We are not owned by any operator, are not part of any holding, and do not accept fixed payments for ranking positions.
The editor-in-chief, Andrew M., spent eight years inside the online gambling industry. He started as a tester at a major Russian-language casino comparison portal, then climbed to head-of-editorial at an international affiliate holding. He left in 2024 specifically because the commercial team had begun dictating ranking order based on payout size. Casino Decoded was founded as a direct response to that practice.
The team includes:
- RU market editor (Moscow-based): background in economics, former payment-systems analyst. Owns the withdrawal-methods and KYC sections.
- PL market editor (Warsaw): finance journalist with a decade of experience covering Polish operators and the regulator (Ministerstwo Finansów / KAS).
- EN market editor (London): former compliance officer at an MGA-licensed operator. Reads UKGC Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) for breakfast.
- AZ market editor (Baku): local payment specialist (m10, MilliÖn, Express Pay) who understands the friction between Azerbaijani banks and offshore operators.
A short history of the project
The idea took shape in early 2024 when our editor-in-chief ran a test series and discovered that 7 of the top 10 casinos featured in major Russian-language ranking sites delayed withdrawals beyond five business days or applied non-obvious wagering exclusions. By June 2024 a static-site prototype was running. August saw the first operators tested. The first public reviews in four languages went live in January 2025. Since then the verified review base has grown to dozens of properly tested operators.
How we work
For every review we run:
- Real deposits through every available payment method (cards, USDT TRC-20/ERC-20, e-wallets, bank wires) — amounts ranging from minimum to ~$500
- Test withdrawals at multiple amounts to measure median processing time: first payout, repeat payout same day, weekend payout, large-amount payout
- Support tests with timed live-chat queries on KYC, bonus terms, technical issues, limit changes, and account closure
- KYC verification on first significant withdrawal — we time the process and document required papers (passport, selfie, utility bill, source-of-funds proof when triggered)
- T&C analysis of welcome bonuses: wagering, max bet, slot exclusions, sticky/non-sticky, max-win cap
- Review aggregation from AskGamblers, CasinoGuru, ThePogg, niche subreddits and Telegram channels
- Licence verification by direct lookup against the regulator's register (Curacao GCB, MGA, UKGC, etc.)
A complete cycle takes three to six weeks and out-of-pocket costs reach $400-700 per operator. That is why our review base is bounded — we do not publish "reviews" without real testing.
Audit timeline of a single operator
Day 1-3: registration, email/phone verification, capture of welcome-bonus terms. Day 4-7: deposit tests across all methods. Day 8-14: gameplay across slots and live tables with screenshot capture and statistics. Day 15-21: first KYC and withdrawal tests across methods. Day 22-28: analysis, write-up, publication in four languages with localised adaptation.
What we don't do
- We don't write "honest reviews" by copy-pasting operator press releases
- We don't publish rankings dictated by affiliate payout size
- We don't hide downsides behind "young brand, give it time"
- We don't use fake authors with stock photos
- We don't run fake "100% cashback" promos that are repackaged deposit bonuses
- We don't delete negative user comments about a casino unless they break our community rules
Sources we trust
When gathering third-party signals we lean on:
- AskGamblers — real disputes and their resolution are recorded there
- CasinoGuru — Safety Index incorporates T&C analysis and payout history
- ThePogg — independent mediator for player-operator disputes
- TrustPilot — for customer-service signal (with a typical-manipulation discount)
- Niche Reddit and Telegram communities — for live payout problems
One negative signal is a reason to look harder. Three negative signals from independent sources is reason enough to lower a score or place a warning in the review.
How editorial decisions are made
Every ranking and rating is debated in the editorial chat. At least two editors must concur before a position changes. Disputed positions (e.g. lowering a score because of one player's withdrawal complaint that other players have not corroborated) are placed in "watch" status with a "verifying" tag visible to readers. No commercial manager has a veto on ratings — we have no commercial manager. Affiliate contracts are signed after a review is published, never before, to prevent the appearance of pay-to-rank.
Affiliate model — full transparency
We earn commissions on /go/ link clicks. This is the project's only revenue source. However:
- Commission size does not affect ranking
- Operators with lower commission can rank above those with higher commission
- All affiliate links carry
rel="nofollow noopener sponsored" - Links route through
/go/{slug}/redirects so we can update partner tracking without editing content - We publish reviews of operators we have no affiliate deal with — those go up without a CTA button
How we differ from generic affiliates
The typical affiliate site in this industry: 1) generates text with AI without fact-checking; 2) ranks casinos purely by commission size; 3) hides negative information; 4) translates the same English text into five languages. We do the inverse: every language version is rewritten with local context, every fact is verified manually, every ranking is grounded in actual testing.
Editorial commitment to transparency
We publish a public changelog of edits to ratings — when a casino rating changes, the reason and the date are visible on the casino's review page. We disclose the affiliate relationship at the top of every review, not buried in a footer. We do not run "sponsored placement" inside ranking articles — sponsored content lives on its own URL clearly marked "Ad".
Editorial contact
- Editorial: editor@casinodecoded.com
- Security: security@casinodecoded.com
- Partnership: partner@casinodecoded.com
- Legal: legal@casinodecoded.com
We respond within 1-2 business days. Urgent security reports — within 24 hours.
Operational transparency
Twice a year (December and June) we publish a transparency report covering: every operator we tested in the period, all rating changes with their justification, the testing budget, the partnership programs we joined or rejected. The report lives at /transparency-report/ and is open to everyone.
We also maintain a public ratings changelog on each casino review page — when a rating changes, the history and reason are visible (e.g., "Lowered from 8.4 to 7.6 in March 2026 after three confirmed cases of USDT-withdrawal delays beyond 7 days").
Editorial independence as infrastructure
Editorial independence is not a slogan; it is infrastructure. In our case:
- There is no in-house commercial team
- The editor-in-chief signs partnership contracts after a review is published
- No operator may edit a published review
- If an operator asks us to "soften the tone", the request is added to a public list
- Where there is factual disagreement with an operator, the operator is offered a right of reply published alongside the review
This is what separates an editorial team from an advertising agency. We do not sell rankings; we sell reader trust.
Code of ethics
Our day-to-day work follows these principles:
- Honesty over rapport — even with operators we have worked with for years
- Usefulness over reach — better one deep review every two weeks than a hundred shallow ones
- Player over operator — in any conflict of interest, the reader comes first
- Speed over the last word — we publish updates immediately, not "once we verified everything"
- Evidence over opinion — no "I think", only "I tested and recorded"