Every input to this pillar is arithmetic, so the honest way to end a ranking page is to say what changes it. The eight pillars, their weights and the confidence grades are on our methodology page; the point values below are the scoring function itself, written out.
Confirming a licence against its register moves a record from medium confidence to high: three points becomes four, so one point of trust. Three operators sit at low confidence and one is unverified, and the function scores both the same, one and a half. For those four, confirmation is worth two and a half points. Betpanda is the odd one of the four: its record names no authority at all, so there is nothing to look up until the operator publishes one.
Documenting a controversy costs a point, up to the three-point cap. That is the largest swing available and it runs one way: nothing removes a documented controversy except establishing that it was wrong.
Verifiable game fairness adds a point, and sixteen of the twenty-seven carry provably fair originals. What that proves is narrower than the phrase suggests, and our provably fair casinos page sets the limit: it shows a round was fixed before your stake went in, and says nothing about whether the operator pays.
Age adds on bands. Half a point below two years, one at two, one and a half at four, two at eight. That last band is why a row can move without an operator doing anything: one founded in 2019 crosses eight years in 2027 and gains half a point on the calendar.
The largest change available is the one nobody here has made, a tier-1 licence. One point immediately, plus whatever the recourse behind it is worth to a player, which the score does not try to price.
Two things this page is not. It is not a certification: we have verified records, not operations. And it is not a reason to open an account, because where you live decides which operators may lawfully serve you. Our US page covers that.
