The online gambling industry has rarely been short of major technological shifts, but few have proved as divisive—or as persistent—as crypto. For more than a decade, digital assets have fuelled a parallel gambling economy: fast-moving, opaque and overwhelmingly offshore.
Now, as regulators from London to Tallinn and Johannesburg reassess their stance, the question is no longer whether crypto casinos exist, but whether they can be brought inside the regulated perimeter without compromising consumer protection.
This shift is already reshaping strategic decisions. Yolo Group, once emblematic of the crypto-native casino boom, is now pivoting into regulated markets, arguing that the time has come for “tier one markets, that set clear rules,” to harness the same benefits that helped its brands scale offshore.
Super Group — the holding company of some of the world’s most popular global iGaming brands, including Betway and Jackpot City — meanwhile, has launched a stablecoin pegged to the rand currency in South Africa, signalling that digital assets may become a competitive tool within mainstream, regulated ecosystems.
But the debates unfolding in Estonia, the Netherlands, the UK and South Africa suggest a complex trajectory: one shaped as much by political appetite and institutional capacity as by consumer demand.
A tale of two markets
The evolution of crypto gambling can be traced along two parallel tracks, explains Chris Elliott, partner at UK law firm Wiggin.
“Early crypto casinos operated on the fringes with an explicit appeal to customers who wanted to avoid KYC, banking friction and, in some cases, local law altogether.” Over the past few years, however, these operators have matured into “a parallel gambling industry with sophisticated marketing, high-quality UX and global reach.”
Their growth, Elliott argues, is not accidental: it is the direct consequence of “the space that opens up between consumer demand and what the regulated offer is allowed to provide”. In markets where payment blocking, high taxes or restrictive rules limit the onshore product, crypto casinos have stepped in — with stablecoins, wallet-based play and instant withdrawals that licensed operators cannot match.
This grey-market surge has not gone unnoticed. Stefan Kovach, an industry consultant, notes that the offshore model “scaled quickly thanks to speed, anonymity, and permissive offshore licensing,” but is now “structurally misaligned with regulated expectations”. The laissez-faire AML frameworks of early crypto casinos “are highly unlikely ever to be compatible with regulated markets given the evidential expectations regulators now set,” he says.
For both regulators and operators, that raises a strategic dilemma: whether to continue driving players offshore — or craft risk-based pathways that allows crypto gambling to exist under supervision.
From niche method to payment infrastructure
Across all jurisdictions, one trend unites consumers and operators: a shift in expectations. Yolo Group argues that crypto is “moving away from a niche payment method to the foundation of a new friction-free experience,” driven by “younger, mobile-first players expecting instant payments and on-chain accountability”.
Kovach expands on this, noting that today’s crypto casino audience wants “greater transparency, provably fair mechanics, innovative game formats, and a strong sense of community built around shared digital identity”. These are product innovations that traditional operators, constrained by licensing obligations, find difficult to replicate.
If crypto is to enter regulated channels, it may not be through pure on-chain gambling, but through the rails beneath it: tokenised balances, stablecoin settlement, and hybrid fiat-crypto models that preserve traceability while improving efficiency.
Estonia: early adopter, newly cautious
Are we likely to see any regulated crypto casinos pop up in the short-term? Possibly. Regulations to enable crypto use across various digital channels are advancing at different paces globally. Few countries demonstrate the evolution of crypto regulation as clearly as Estonia.
Once a hub for e-residency businesses and early VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Providers) that provide services related to cryptocurrencies — it has since introduced stringent requirements for licensing and AML. Yet according to Margus Reiland of WIDEN Legal, the tightening of rules “makes it easier, not harder, to plug crypto into the regulated gambling framework”.
If crypto payment providers already comply with local AML rules and MiCA — the regulatory framework introduced to govern crypto-assets across EU member states — he says: “that’s a strong signal to the Estonian regulator that the basic compliance groundwork is done.” Estonia’s strategy of welcoming crypto firms early, then raising standards, has produced “strong and compliant” payment companies, making integration more realistic than many assume.
For operators, however, the hesitation lies not in demand but in regulatory confidence. “A lot of legitimate operators are still wary and they don’t necessarily want to be the first ones to test where the regulator’s comfort zone really is,” Reiland notes. Still, he argues that “crypto payments in gambling are already possible today if you do it the correct way”. A formalised framework may evolve gradually rather than through explicit legislation.
This cautious permissiveness has not prevented innovation. The Bombay Club in Tallinn has become a frequently cited example that “a crypto-dominant luxury casino can thrive in a regulated environment,” as Bombay Group Chief Executive Kevin McGowen puts it.
The Netherlands: consumer protection first, innovation later
Across the North Sea, the Dutch approach could hardly contrast more sharply. Crypto gambling payments are simply not allowed. In fact the government is working on gambling reforms to restrict current measures further. “The Dutch legal framework has a heavy emphasis on consumer protection, KYC and AML,” explains Björn Fuchs, chairman of Dutch trade body VNLOK.
“At this point in time crypto is considered a risk,” he adds. With approved payment methods limited to bank transfers, iDeal and credit cards, “it’s not very likely that legislation will adapt to crypto in the near future”.
Unlike Estonia’s gradual openness, Dutch regulators view crypto as incompatible with the Netherlands’ highly controlled igaming market. Fuchs warns that the “gap between consumer behaviour and legal frameworks is increasing,” creating risks to consumer protection. Yet political appetite for reform is minimal. Younger, mobile-first audiences — which elsewhere drive crypto adoption — are classified as vulnerable groups in the Netherlands, making them audiences licensed operators cannot target.
Even long-term prospects appear subdued. While the EU’s harmonisation through MiCA may gradually normalise crypto usage, Fuchs expects “quite some years before there’s enough actual harmonisation so that crypto can become widespread mainstream.”
The UK: cautious, but no longer dismissive
The UK sits somewhere in the middle. Crypto payments are not banned, but as Elliott puts it, the Gambling Commission has created “a de facto prohibition” by positioning crypto as “so high-risk… that most licensees regard it as not worth the regulatory headache.”
Yet the tone has shifted. Gambling Commission CEO Andrew Rhodes acknowledged growing “pressure within the system” from younger consumers who may find they “have no place in legitimate industry because of the currency they use”. What he had once considered a “five-year-away problem” now appears an “18–24 month challenge”.
Still, Elliott stresses that any authorisation “will be a government-level decision,” tied closely to the UK’s broader digital-asset regulatory project. Without a dedicated framework, crypto gambling will remain commercially unattractive.
Kovach shares this view. The UK’s stance is “high-risk rather than prohibited”, meaning any crypto usage will remain confined to “tightly controlled fiat-conversion flows with full traceability.” The low-touch AML model of offshore casinos “is fundamentally misaligned with what regulated markets will ever permit”.
Africa: stablecoins and strategic advantage
If Europe is defined by caution, Africa is increasingly shaped by necessity. Payment friction, cross-border remittances and currency instability have made digital assets attractive across several markets. Super Group’s November launch of the ZAR Super Coin signals that regulated brands are no longer waiting for crypto-native operators to define the space.
CEO Neal Menashe sees it as “more than just a rewards tool, a crucial first step in integrating digital assets into our product stack.” A digital asset wallet is planned for Q1 2026, beginning in South Africa, where “adoption of alternative payment methods continues to accelerate”.
But South Africa remains a regulatory outlier: progressive on crypto, restrictive on online gambling. Wayne Lurie at Randburg-based legal firm Lurie Inc explains that classifying crypto as a financial product “pulls it inside an existing regulatory perimeter” and makes a regulated model “more imaginable” — yet also raises the compliance bar. Any gambling operator would need crypto permissions or partnerships with fully licensed service providers.
More fundamentally, Lurie argues, policy remains shaped by the illegality of online casino gaming and the fragmented nature of South African gambling regulation. Even if crypto rails become available, offshore crypto casinos may continue to dominate unless local products become more competitive and enforcement more forceful. “A strict prohibition policy that is widely ignored undermines confidence in regulation. If crypto is layered on top, the gap between law on the books and law in practice will widen further,” he explains.
The benefits of integration, including greater transparency, richer transactional data, programmable responsible-gambling toolsm are significant, but so are the risks: capital outflows (money leaving a country or a regulated system), AML vulnerabilities, socio-economic harms, and limited regulator capacity.
The future of crypto gambling: convergence, cautiously
Will regulated crypto gambling become mainstream? Answers vary by region.
Elliott gives a qualified response: “yes, in places”. He anticipates adoption in markets where payment constraints and offshore leakage force regulators’ hands. Fuchs, in contrast, sees political headwinds delaying European uptake. Reiland suggests Estonia already has the technical capability — but awaits operator confidence.
Lurie expects South Africa to “experiment at the margins” over the next five years, with limited but controlled crypto-to-rand conversion around licensed betting.
The direction of travel, however, appears shared. As Kevin McGowen, chief executive of Bombay Group, puts it, “blockchain is a compliance asset, not a loophole”. The risk is not crypto itself, but regulation “hesitating” as offshore providers continue to grow.
For regulators, the challenge is to strike the balance that has eluded them for a decade: to capture the transparency and efficiency crypto offers, while rejecting the low-touch AML model that defined its early years. For operators, success will depend on building the infrastructure — treasury management, wallet screening, chain analytics — required to meet expectations that many offshore firms long ignored.
The next wave of crypto gambling will be less about anonymity and speed, and more about legitimacy, integration and control. The question seems to no longer be whether crypto belongs in regulated igaming, but how — and how soon — regulators will build the framework to let it in.
Crypto gambling’s rise has created a divide between consumer demand and regulatory caution. Experts believe the risk is not crypto itself, but regulation “hesitating” as offshore providers continue to grow.