If you’ve noticed a casino’s “owner” listed differently depending on which review site you read, you’re not imagining it. Crypto casino ownership changes more often, and more opaquely, than almost any other part of this industry — and most sites that cover it just repeat whatever they found once, without checking if it’s still true. We looked into five major brands in depth. Here’s what we found, and why this keeps happening.
Why Crypto Casino Ownership Changes So Often
-
Curaçao’s 2024 licensing reform reshaped almost everything, but not in the way people assume
The National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK) came into force December 24, 2024, eliminating the old master-license system where one shadowy “master” entity could sublicense dozens of unrelated brands with minimal oversight. The reform requires whoever hosts a brand to hold a direct, publicly accountable license — but it doesn’t require every individual brand to hold a separate one.
That’s a crucial distinction: one entity legitimately hosting several brands under one license (like mBit, 7Bit, Mirax, KatsuBet, and RocketPlay all sharing Scores55 Tech B.V.’s license today) isn’t a red flag — it’s the expected, transparent continuation of the standard white-label model. A brand breaking out into its own dedicated license (like BitStarz did) is actually the less common path.
-
Regulatory enforcement targets corporate names specifically, which creates real pressure to change them
Australia’s ACMA issued formal warnings against Dama N.V. repeatedly between 2022 and 2025, across more than a dozen brands. Separately, ACMA warned Blockdance B.V. (BC.Game’s original operator) in 2022, and the Netherlands’ KSA attempted an €840,000 fine against the same company.
Accumulated public enforcement against one corporate identity is a real, credible reason an operator would want distance from that name — even if the underlying business continues.
-
Banking pressure hits fiat-accepting operators specifically
Card networks maintain shared blacklists (like the MATCH list) for merchants with excessive chargebacks or fraud flags — once an entity is on it, there’s effectively no path back except operating under a new one.
This doesn’t apply to crypto-only operations, which never touch card networks at all — a real, structural reason some operators change entities more than others.
-
Sometimes it’s simpler and more serious: bankruptcy
BC.Game’s operators, BlockDance B.V. and Small House B.V., were declared bankrupt by a Curaçao court in November 2024, following claims that player funds went unpaid.
This is the most consequential version of “ownership changed” in this whole series — real players lost real money, and the new operator didn’t assume the old one’s debts.
-
And sometimes a name on file doesn’t mean what it looks like it means
Named directors or officers for offshore-registered companies are frequently professional nominees — paid to appear on the paperwork — rather than the people actually controlling or profiting from the business.
We tried to identify a real controlling individual behind more than one brand in this series and repeatedly hit this wall. That’s not a failure of research; it’s a real, documented limitation of “ownership transparency” in this part of the industry.
A note on “sister sites”
You’ll see this term used loosely across the industry to imply common ownership, shared quality, or both. Neither is reliably true. What “sister site” verifiably means, at most, is that two brands currently share a licensed operator — which tells you about regulatory infrastructure, not about who profits from the business or what it’s actually like to play there.
Support quality, payout speed, game selection, and KYC strictness are independent, brand-level decisions that shared licensing doesn’t determine. We define the term narrowly and say so explicitly on every page that uses it.
The five brands we’ve investigated so far
Named, public founders (Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani), a consistent ownership chain from Primedice through Easygo to Medium Rare N.V., no nominee-director ambiguity, no bankruptcy. [Read: Who Owns Stake?]
Moved from Dama N.V. to its own dedicated license under Gareton B.V. Public sources disagree on whether this reflects a clean acquisition or something else, and we couldn’t verify a real controlling individual behind the current entity. [Read: Who Owns BitStarz?]
Shares a license with 7Bit, Mirax, and KatsuBet under Scores55 Tech B.V. — the expected shape of post-reform licensing, not a red flag, though the brands run entirely separate affiliate programs. [Read: Who Owns mBit?]
A real bankruptcy triggered by unpaid player funds, a disputed court ruling, and a claims process that doesn’t guarantee recovery. [Read: Who Owns BC.Game?]
Same brand and domain since 2014, a routine post-reform jurisdiction move, no bankruptcy or major scandal — but a Trustpilot warning badge and an LCB complaint thread worth knowing about. [Read: Who Owns FortuneJack?]
