Bitcasino.io vs BC.Game
Bitcasino.io names 120 game studios, a EUR 2,500 verification threshold and a weekly payout ceiling. BC.Game publishes none of the three. The records compared.
Checked 2026-08-27 · compared on documents both operators publish
- Bitcasino.io licence:
- OGL/2023/111/0069 · Active
- BC.Game licence:
- ALSI-202410011-FI1 · VALID
- Bitcasino.io studios:
- 120
- Bitcasino.io coins:
- not published
- Evidence score:
- 8.8 / 10
- Outside BC.Game's licence:
- Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA
This comparison is built from two kinds of document and nothing else: what each brand publishes about itself, and what a public licence register returns when its number is put in. A blank field below means we have not read the document that would fill it, not that the answer is nil.
On the measure this page is about, the gap is not close. Bitcasino.io names 120 individual game studios on its own site, the longest supplier list we have read anywhere in the ranked forty. BC.Game's provider list is a field we have never filled, so the honest comparison is 120 against unread. Where Bitcasino.io stands among all forty is on the BC Game alternatives register.
The two records side by side
Every row is a field in our operator library. The BC.Game column comes from its own help pages and the Anjouan Gaming Board validation endpoint; the Bitcasino column from its terms and the Curacao Gaming Authority certificate register.
| Field | BC.Game | Bitcasino.io |
|---|---|---|
| Licence authority | Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros | Curacao Gaming Authority |
| Licence number | ALSI-202410011-FI1 | OGL/2023/111/0069 |
| Register result | Valid, checked 27 August 2026 | Active, certificate resolves on the CGA register |
| Earlier licence | Curacao OGL/2023/118/0060, returned as revoked | None recorded |
| Game studios named | Not read | 120 |
| Coins named | Not read | Not read |
| Verification wording | Section 6 heading held; text not recorded | Clause 6.6, summarised |
| Stated verification threshold | Not published | EUR 2,500 or crypto equivalent |
| Withdrawal cap | Not published | 1,000,000 USDT per week, clause 6.10 |
| Tags held | Crypto-only, sportsbook, original games, live dealer, provably fair | Sportsbook, original games, live dealer, VIP programme |
Read 27 August 2026. A blank is an unread document, not a zero.
A catalogue you can count against one we have not read
Bitcasino publishes its suppliers by name. The list runs from the studios almost every crypto lobby carries, among them Pragmatic Play, Evolution, Play'n GO, Hacksaw Gaming, Nolimit City and Yggdrasil, through to smaller houses a shorter list would drop: Peter and Sons, Popiplay, Split The Pot, Penguin King. Live tables come from several suppliers rather than one.
The reason a named list matters is that it is checkable. If a page says a casino has two thousand games, there is nothing in that number you can test. If it says the lobby carries Nolimit City, you can look for those titles and see whether they are there.
BC.Game's side of this row is the honest problem. We have not read a supplier list from it, so our library holds an empty array, and an empty array here means one thing: nobody has read the document.
How much of a long catalogue is actually distinctive
Twenty-two of the forty ranked alternatives publish a supplier list we have read, and comparing them against each other is more revealing than comparing one against a blank. The large catalogues are largely the same catalogue: of the 110 studios Sportsbet.io names, 99 also appear on Bitcasino's list, and of Empire.io's 79, 76 do.
Some studios are close to universal: Hacksaw Gaming appears in 21 of the 22 catalogues we hold, Evolution in 20 and Pragmatic Play in 19. A reader choosing between two brands on the strength of those names is not choosing between much. Where Bitcasino's 120 earns its place is at the edges of the list, and that is the part a reader can check quickly.
| Pair | Studios named | Names shared |
|---|---|---|
| Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io | 120 and 110 | 99 |
| Bitcasino.io and Empire.io | 120 and 79 | 76 |
| Bitcasino.io and Fairspin | 120 and 114 | 61 |
Matched on studio name after normalising punctuation and suffixes such as Gaming and Studios.
Verification: a summarised clause against a section heading
Bitcasino's terms give the operator the right to ask for identity documents at any time, including on a first deposit and before a withdrawal is processed. Clause 6.6 then adds a number: withdrawals above EUR 2,500 or the equivalent in cryptocurrency may attract additional checks, and smaller withdrawals may also be checked where the gaming licence requires it. That second half matters as much as the figure. A published threshold is not a promise that nothing below it is looked at; it is the point above which extra checks are stated as routine. Exactly five of the forty ranked alternatives publish a number of that kind.
For BC.Game we hold the numbering of its user agreement. Section 6 is headed Know Your Customer (KYC) and Identity Verification, and sections 10 and 11 cover deposits and withdrawals. We have not recorded the text, and no threshold figure has been read. We will not summarise a clause we have not captured.
The ceiling on a withdrawal
Bitcasino's clause 6.10 sets a payout ceiling of 1,000,000 USDT per week, by a wide margin the highest of the eight caps we have read across the ranked forty. For almost every reader it is a number that will never be reached; its use is that a published cap gives a queried large withdrawal a written reference point rather than a support conversation. BC.Game's cap fields are empty, and we have not captured what section 11 of its user agreement says about limits.
Two licence lines, and what each resolves to
Both numbers answer when they are checked, which is less common in this market than it sounds. BC.Game's ALSI-202410011-FI1 returned as valid from the Anjouan authority's own validation endpoint on 27 August 2026, and Bitcasino's OGL/2023/111/0069 resolves to an active certificate on the Curacao register. BC.Game's Anjouan licence does not reach every territory; our BC.Game licence page carries the authority's own wording on that.
One thing separates them. Bitcasino's number is not unique to it: Livecasino.io, also in the ranked forty, carries the same number and publishes the same EUR 2,500 wording. Four numbers in our library are carried by two brands each; BC.Game's is carried by no other brand we hold.
And one detail sits on BC.Game's side. Before the Anjouan licence it held Curacao licence OGL/2023/118/0060, which now returns as revoked. That is why any page still describing BC.Game as Curacao-licensed is out of date, and it is the only revoked register result anywhere in our library. None of the forty ranked alternatives carries one.
Who each one suits
The rows follow from the tables rather than from a preference.
| If this is what you want to check | The record that answers it | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Which studios are in the lobby | Bitcasino.io | 120 suppliers named on its own site; BC.Game's list is unread |
| A written figure above which extra checks are stated | Bitcasino.io | EUR 2,500 in clause 6.6; BC.Game states no number we have read |
| A published ceiling on weekly payouts | Bitcasino.io | 1,000,000 USDT per week, clause 6.10; BC.Game's cap fields are empty |
| A licence number carried by one brand only | BC.Game | Bitcasino shares its number with Livecasino.io |
| A documented provably-fair scheme | BC.Game | It describes a chain of ten million pre-generated hashes; Bitcasino does not carry the tag |
What each side of the record is good for
For
- Bitcasino names 120 game studios, the longest supplier list we have read in the ranked forty
- It publishes a verification threshold in its own terms, which only five of the forty do
- It states a weekly payout ceiling by clause number rather than leaving it to support
Against
- Its coin list is unread on our side, so the payments comparison cannot be made here
- Its licence number is carried by a second brand in the same ranked set
- It carries no provably-fair tag, where BC.Game documents a specific scheme
Questions people ask
- Does Bitcasino.io really have more games than BC.Game?
We cannot say that, and the page does not. Bitcasino names 120 supplier studios; we have not read a supplier list from BC.Game at all. Games and studios are different counts, and we hold neither.
- What does the EUR 2,500 figure in Bitcasino's terms actually mean?
Clause 6.6 states that withdrawals above EUR 2,500 or the crypto equivalent may attract additional identity checks, and that smaller ones may also be checked where the licence requires it. It is a stated trigger for extra checks, not a level below which checks never happen.
- Is a 120-studio catalogue really different from a 79-studio one?
Less than the numbers suggest. Of Empire.io's 79 studios, 76 also appear on Bitcasino's list, and of Sportsbet.io's 110, 99 do. The difference between large catalogues in this market sits at the edges rather than in the familiar names.
- Why does it matter that Bitcasino shares a licence number?
Because checking both Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io gives a reader one register result rather than two. It is a fact about the licence rather than evidence about either site, but it is worth knowing before treating them as independent options.
- Have you tested withdrawals at either site?
No. This site makes no deposits, runs no withdrawal tests and republishes no payout claims from anywhere else. Everything above is read from operator documents and licence registers.
BC.Game alternatives ranks Bitcasino.io against thirty-nine others on the same evidence.