Skip to content

Fairspin vs BC.Game

Fairspin's Anjouan number ALSI-202508047-FI2 is also carried by Weiss in the same ranked set. What a shared number does and does not tell a reader.

Checked 2026-08-27 · compared on documents both operators publish

Fairspin licence:
ALSI-202508047-FI2 · valid
BC.Game licence:
ALSI-202410011-FI1 · VALID
Fairspin studios:
114
Fairspin coins:
not published
Evidence score:
7.0 / 10
Outside BC.Game's licence:
Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA

Fairspin holds an Anjouan licence, ALSI-202508047-FI2, recorded as valid on the authority's public register. So does Weiss, another brand in the same ranked forty, under the same number. Four numbers in our library are carried by two brands each, and this is one of them. A reader lining up two brands as independent alternatives should know when the paperwork behind them is a single document.

It is not an accusation and nothing here suggests otherwise. Licences are issued to operators, and one operator can run more than one site under one permission; that is ordinary. The point is narrower: a shared number means two entries on a comparison table are backed by one register result, so checking both gives a reader one piece of evidence, not two. How one company's permit covers several brands is on BC Game sister sites, and the forty ranked records on the BC Game alternatives shortlist.

The four shared numbers in our library

Setting them out shows the pattern is not unusual in this market, and that it cuts across regulators.

Licence numbers carried by more than one brand in the ranked forty
NumberAuthorityBrands carrying it
ALSI-202508047-FI2Anjouan Gaming BoardFairspin, Weiss
OGL/2023/111/0069Curacao Gaming AuthorityBitcasino.io, Livecasino.io
OGL/2024/1307/0748Curacao Gaming AuthorityMirax, KatsuBet
8048/JAZCuracaoLTC Casino, Primedice

Read 26 to 27 August 2026 from operator pages and registers. BC.Game's number, ALSI-202410011-FI1, is carried by no other brand in the library.

A catalogue that is genuinely its own

The shared number is not a reason to dismiss the record, because on one field Fairspin publishes more than almost anyone. It names 114 supplier studios, the second longest list in the ranked forty behind Bitcasino.io's 120.

More interesting than the count is how little of it is borrowed. Of Fairspin's 114 names, 61 appear on Bitcasino's list and 62 on Sportsbet.io's, where those two large catalogues share 99 names with each other. In a market where the big lobbies are largely the same lobby, roughly half of Fairspin's is not: Igrosoft, Fazi, Jade Rabbit, Macaw Gaming, Buck Stakes Entertainment, Old Skool, Triple Cherry, Snowborn Studios, Northern Lights Gaming and Vibra Gaming sit alongside the familiar houses.

For a reader whose complaint about crypto casinos is that they all look alike, that is the most concrete counter-example in the set, and it is checkable in a couple of minutes by searching the lobby for two or three of those names.

How far the three largest catalogues overlap each other
PairStudios namedNames shared
Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io120 and 11099
Fairspin and Bitcasino.io114 and 12061
Fairspin and Sportsbet.io114 and 11062

Matched on studio name after normalising punctuation and suffixes such as Gaming and Studios.

Five days is a shorter clock than it sounds

Fairspin's verification clause, 7.6, allows it to request documents and information for a KYC check at its discretion, and to ask for further information when considering a refund request. It gives the user five days to supply what is asked.

A document window is the part of a verification policy that decides outcomes. A request for a passport scan and a utility bill is routine; a request answered on the sixth day when the terms allow five is a different situation, and the clause is there in advance for anyone who reads it. Only two brands across the forty publish a window at all, and the other, Rocketpot, allows thirty calendar days.

Whether five days is a mark for or against depends entirely on the reader: it is a demanding term and it is also a disclosed one, which is more than thirty-eight of the forty offer. Fairspin publishes no numeric threshold, so it is not among the five brands that do, and BC.Game publishes no window we have read.

Fairspin and BC.Game, field by field
FieldBC.GameFairspin
Licence authorityAnjouan, Union of ComorosAnjouan Gaming Board
Licence numberALSI-202410011-FI1ALSI-202508047-FI2, also carried by Weiss
Register resultValid, checked 27 August 2026Valid, on the Anjouan public register
Game studios namedNot read114
Verification wordingSection 6 heading held; text not recordedClause 7.6, with a five-day document window
Stated verification thresholdNot publishedNot published
Coins namedNot readNot read
Withdrawal capNot publishedNot published
Tags heldCrypto-only, sportsbook, original games, live dealer, provably fairSportsbook, original games, live dealer, VIP programme

A blank is an unread document, not a zero.

What neither record answers

Fairspin's coin list is unread and so is BC.Game's, so this comparison has nothing to say about either cashier. Neither publishes a withdrawal ceiling we have read. Neither publishes a verification figure. Where two records are blank in the same place, the honest thing is to say so rather than to fill the row with an inference.

One row does separate them beyond the shared number. Fairspin carries no provably-fair tag, where BC.Game not only carries it but describes the mechanism: ten million hashes generated in advance and released in reverse order, with verification code published on GitHub. Not every territory falls inside BC.Game's Anjouan licence, and our BC.Game licence page gives the authority's statement.

Who each one suits

The shared number changes what a reader should do rather than which brand they should pick.

Which record answers which reader
If this is what you want to checkThe record that answers itWhy
A licence number unique to one brandBC.GameNo other brand in the library carries ALSI-202410011-FI1; Fairspin shares its number with Weiss
Breadth of the supplier catalogueFairspin114 studios named, second only to Bitcasino.io; BC.Game's list is unread
A lobby that differs from the other large onesFairspinOnly about half its studios appear on either of the two largest lists
How long you have to answer a document requestFairspinFive days at clause 7.6; BC.Game publishes no window we have read
A documented provably-fair schemeBC.GameTen million pre-generated hashes; Fairspin holds no provably-fair tag
Which coins are acceptedNeitherBoth coin lists are unread in the library

Where the evidence favours each

For

  • 114 supplier studios named, the second longest list in the ranked forty
  • Roughly half its catalogue does not appear on either of the two largest lists
  • A licence number recorded as valid on the Anjouan public register
  • A five-day document window published, one of only two deadlines in the set

Against

  • Its licence number is carried by a second brand in the same ranked set
  • Five days is the tighter of the two published document windows
  • Coin list unread and no withdrawal cap published
  • No provably-fair tag, against a documented scheme on BC.Game's side

Questions people ask

Are Fairspin and Weiss the same casino?

We do not say that, because our evidence does not reach it. What our record shows is that both carry the licence number ALSI-202508047-FI2. A shared number means one register result stands behind two brand names, which is worth knowing before treating them as independent options.

Is a shared licence number a problem?

Not in itself. Licences are granted to operators and an operator may run more than one site. The practical consequence is narrower: checking both brands gives a reader one piece of evidence rather than two.

Is Fairspin's game selection different from other crypto casinos?

More than most. Of its 114 studios, 61 appear on Bitcasino.io's list and 62 on Sportsbet.io's, where those two share 99 names with each other. About half of Fairspin's catalogue is not on either of the two largest lists in the set.

What is the five-day rule?

Clause 7.6 allows Fairspin to request KYC documents and further information at its discretion, and requires the user to provide them within five days. It is the tighter of the two document windows published across the ranked forty.

Does Fairspin publish a verification threshold?

No. Clause 7.6 attaches no figure, so Fairspin is not among the five brands in the forty that publish one. Neither is BC.Game, whose section 6 text we have not captured.

Open Fairspin

BC.Game alternatives ranks Fairspin against thirty-nine others on the same evidence.