Blockchain data reveals one casino now controls 80% of crypto's on-chain gambling.
A Bitquery analysis of twelve months of Ethereum transactions found a single casino, Stake, drawing roughly four of every five on-chain gamblers — and growing while its rivals fade.
Crypto casinos do not open their books. They report their own traffic, announce their own record weeks, and ask everyone to trust the figures. The deposits, though, are not private. On Ethereum they arrive as public transactions, timestamped and permanent, and anyone willing to do the accounting can watch the money move.
We did the accounting. Over the past year, from July 2025 through July 2026, we tracked every Ethereum deposit into the six largest labeled casino brands in Bitquery's address database: Stake, Roobet, TigerGaming, Bitcasino, Rollbit and Gamdom. We counted only real money, native ether and the major dollar stablecoins, and we priced each deposit at that month's actual exchange rate. The result is the closest thing that exists to an audited scoreboard for on-chain gambling.
One caveat up front: this analysis covers Ethereum only, and it can see only the wallets that carry a Bitquery address label. Activity on other chains, off-chain, or on casino addresses we have not yet labeled does not appear here. Read the numbers as a floor, not a full accounting.
It is not a competitive market. It is one company and everyone else.
In April, the last full month in the data, Stake accounted for 78 percent of all active gamblers across the six sites. Roobet, a distant second, held 16 percent. The other four casinos split what was left. And Stake was the only one of the six that grew: its monthly base of active depositing wallets climbed 82 percent over the year, from about 21,000 to nearly 39,000. Every other casino we measured was flat or shrinking.
The declines were real and, in one case, close to total. Roobet lost about a third of its on-chain players. Rollbit slipped 10 percent. Gamdom nearly vanished from Ethereum, falling 97 percent, from roughly 1,990 monthly gamblers in the middle of 2025 to fewer than 70 by spring. Because we measure only Ethereum, the most likely explanation is not that Gamdom's players quit but that they moved: to cheaper blockchains where the same bets cost a fraction in fees. On Ethereum, Gamdom has effectively closed the room.
The money belongs to a handful of wallets
Deposit volume tells a harsher version of the same story. Raw gambling volume is almost useless as a statistic, because a single large depositor can move a monthly total by billions of dollars. In one month, one Stake wallet's ether swung the raw figure past $5 billion. So we report volume with the top 5 percent of depositors removed each month, which is the only way to see the underlying flow rather than the tide of one whale.
Even then, the concentration is extreme. Across every casino, the top 1 percent of depositors account for between 69 and 94 percent of all volume. At Stake the figure is 90 percent; at Roobet, 94. A crypto casino's on-chain business, measured in dollars, is a few dozen wallets and a long tail of small players who lose modestly and leave.
Those few dozen wallets are not short of money. We checked the current on-chain balances of a sample of depositors at each site. The typical gambler is a small holder, with a median liquid balance between $85 and about $1,000. But every casino carries a cluster of players sitting on six figures. At Roobet, the 90th-percentile depositor holds roughly $772,000. Between 35 and 103 depositors at each site hold more than $100,000 in liquid crypto right now. The whales at the tables can afford to be there.
Where the chips come from
Here is a number no casino can produce about itself, because it lives one step upstream of the deposit: who funded the gambler before the gambler funded the house.
We followed the inbound money into each casino's depositors and matched the source wallets against Bitquery's exchange labels. One name sits at the top of nearly every casino's list. It is Binance, which funded between 2 and 4 percent of each site's sampled depositors, ahead of Coinbase, Bybit and the rest.
That is a conservative count. Exchange withdrawal wallets are only partly labeled, so between 9 and 16 percent of each casino's depositors trace to a named exchange, and more hide behind hot wallets no one has attributed yet. The direction is not in doubt. Centralized exchanges are the on-ramp for on-chain gambling, and Binance is the largest of them.
The relationship runs the other way, too. Among the gamblers active in June, a large share also deposit directly to an exchange themselves: 36 percent at Stake, 35 at Gamdom, 31 at Roobet, and about a quarter at Rollbit and Bitcasino. Nearly one in three of Stake's on-chain players is also somebody's exchange customer, shuttling funds between the account where they hold and the account where they bet. (In a separate study of a major exchange's own users, we found the same crossover at 34 percent, an independent check that the method holds.)
Players also move between casinos. The overlap ranges from about 7 percent at Stake, whose customers are the stickiest we measured, to nearly 28 percent at Gamdom, whose shrinking base now leans heavily on players it shares with larger sites.
The quiet switch to stablecoins
A year ago, most gamblers funded their accounts in ether. By mid-2026 they had switched to dollars. Across the six casinos, ether's share of deposits fell from 69 percent to 47 percent, while Tether's USDT rose from 21 percent to 37 percent and Circle's USDC from 10 to 16.
The logic is plain enough. A gambler would rather stake a dollar that stays a dollar than one that might drop 15 percent between the deposit and the deal. Any cashier still built around volatile crypto is fighting a war the players have already ended.
They arrive, they lose, they leave
Retention in gambling is grim, and the chain shows it without mercy. Of the players who make a first deposit in any given month, only a fraction are still depositing a few months later. The curves fall off a cliff after the first month and flatten near the floor.
Stake keeps the most players in raw numbers, but only because it acquires so many more to begin with. No casino has solved the basic arithmetic of the business: most people who gamble stop, and the house survives on the ones who cannot.
The casino that isn't there
TigerGaming was supposed to be part of this story. It has 106,053 labeled Ethereum deposit addresses, the third-largest set of the six. Over twelve months, those addresses took in exactly zero real deposits.
The addresses are not idle. In April alone they received 614 transfers. But every one was a worthless scam token airdropped by a single spammer, not a player funding an account. The labels are real; nothing is happening behind them. TigerGaming's on-chain deposits have moved to another chain or stopped entirely, and its address set now maps a casino that no longer operates here.
We mention it because it is the entire argument for measuring rather than trusting. Count the labeled addresses and TigerGaming looks like a mid-sized casino with a six-figure user base. Follow the actual money and it has no on-chain business at all. The distance between a label and a live customer is exactly where this kind of analysis earns its place.
The scoreboard
| Casino | Deposit addresses | Est. monthly gamblers | Median deposit | Whale share | 12-month growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stake | 499,978 (sampled) | 38,804 ±2,737 | $191 | 90.0% | +82% |
| Roobet | 146,751 (sampled) | 7,904 ±928 | $218 | 94.0% | −32% |
| TigerGaming | 106,053 (labeled) | dormant · 0 real deposits | — | — | — |
| Bitcasino | 38,018 (full set) | 781 | $76 | 71.2% | +5% |
| Rollbit | 31,852 (full set) | 2,035 | $147 | 69.4% | −10% |
| Gamdom | 16,639 (full set) | 68 | $485 | 72.8% | −97% |
How we did this
Every figure comes from Ethereum transfer data at Bitquery, computed one calendar month at a time from July 2025 through July 2026. A wallet counts as an active gambler in a month only if it made at least one real-money deposit, native ether or a USDC, USDT or DAI contract, into a casino's labeled deposit addresses. Scam-token transfers are excluded at the source. Volume prices stablecoins at a dollar and ether at that month's blockchain exchange rate, a figure we filtered for manipulation and which ranged from about $1,700 to $4,300 over the year. Because a few whales dominate the raw totals, volume is reported with the top 5 percent of depositors removed.
Three casinos — Bitcasino, Rollbit and Gamdom — are measured on their complete address sets, so their figures are exact. The other three — Stake, Roobet and TigerGaming — are extrapolated from random address samples and carry a 95 percent confidence range. Our address labels lag real activity by roughly 90 days, so the most recent three months undercount new players and are set aside when we calculate growth.
Three limits matter. Wallets are not people; one person can hold many, so treat the counts as wallets and the comparisons — share, growth, crossover — as the firmer ground. Second, this is Ethereum alone: deposits on other chains, in fiat, or off-chain do not appear here, which is why a casino like Gamdom can look nearly dead on Ethereum while running elsewhere. Third, the analysis is bounded by the address labels available to Bitquery: we can only measure deposits into addresses we have already labeled as belonging to a casino, so any casino wallet outside our label set is invisible to this count, and the labels themselves are a July-2026 snapshot that we make no claim updates on its own. Read the figures as a floor, not a full accounting.
Run this analysis yourself
Query the same on-chain data through the Bitquery MCP
Every figure here came from labeled Ethereum transfers at Bitquery. Point your AI agent at our Model Context Protocol server and ask the same questions — deposits, flows, exchange funding, retention — across 40+ chains, in natural language.
Connect the Bitquery MCP →