BC.Game review: one number revoked, one valid

This BC.Game review ends without a score, and the reason is printed in the file rather than argued for here: the record carries doNotList and the stated reason licence revoked or removed from the register. One certificate, read on 26 August 2026, says the licence number held by Small House B.V. is Revoked. A second register, read the same day, holds a different number under a different company marked valid, with a term that runs out on 1 October 2026 – four days from the date on this page. Between those two rows the record is almost entirely empty: no coin list, no verification clause, no ceiling, no country list. A BC.Game review that produced a tidy number out of that would be inventing one.

What this BC.Game review is built from

The BC.Game record was retrieved live and checked on 26 August 2026 – the brand’s own pages answered. That makes the emptiness of the record unusual. For twenty-one records in the library nothing could be read at all, and their blank cells describe our reading. This is not one of those. Something was read here, and it produced a licence row and five tags, and nothing else.

The five tags are ours, not the operator’s: crypto-only, sportsbook, original-games, live-dealer and provably-fair. They are shorthand for what kind of site it is, entered by hand, and they are not measurements of anything. No tag in our file has a clause number behind it, which is why none of them is scored and why this BC.Game review does not lean on them for a single conclusion.

The second file is the register lookup, keyed by domain and checked 26 August 2026. It carries the full certificate text for bc.game plus a row from the other register. The third is the score sheet, regenerated 17 September 2026, which is where the refusal to rate is recorded. Those three files, with their three dates, are the whole basis here, as they are for every record listed at every licence and clause this site has checked.

Two registers, two companies, two statuses

Side by side, with nothing merged:

Two numbers, two companies, two statuses, one brand, one reading date. Nothing in our files says whether the two companies are related, whether one succeeded the other, or whether both were ever live at once, and this BC.Game review will not guess at any of it. What the table does establish is that a single-cell answer to is it licensed cannot be produced honestly from these sources, which is why our licence column carries a source and a date rather than a badge.

Eight other brands in the library show the same shape – one brand named under different holders by the two registers – and the full count of them is at the entry on brands, holders and shared licence numbers.

What the word Revoked does and does not tell you

The BC.Game certificate text is worth reading literally. It certifies that the domain is operated by Small House B.V., a company with number 164979, under licence number OGL/2023/118/0060, that the licence was granted on 4 March 2024, and that its current status is Revoked. That is the whole of it.

Four things it does not say: when the status changed, why it changed, whether the site continued taking custom afterwards, and whether anything replaced it. Our file records none of those, so this BC.Game review states none of them. The temptation with a revoked row is to narrate a collapse; the evidence supports a status word and a grant date, and a grant date is not an end date.

Six certificates in the register file read Revoked, covering five operator records plus one – Coinplay – whose operator record carries no licence block at all. Three of the five share a single number under one company, which is the clearest demonstration in the library that a status word attaches to a company rather than to a brand name. The full licence column, and what each status word is worth, is counted at how many licence rows read Revoked this month.

The second number, and a date four days from now

The Anjouan row for BC.Game reads valid with a term from 2 October 2024 to 1 October 2026. It was read on 26 August 2026, thirty-two days before the date on this page, and its last printed day is four days after it.

That is not a prediction about anything. It is arithmetic on two printed dates, and it is the most perishable fact in this BC.Game review: by the time most people read this sentence, the row either has been renewed, has lapsed, or has been replaced by something we have not seen. We have not re-read it, and the honest version of that is to say so rather than to quietly present a month-old valid as current.

The same arithmetic across the whole file finds six terms that have already run past their printed end date since the reading, and three rows that read valid on 26 August while carrying an end date already in the past. Those are set out at the entry on register rows and their end dates. It is the strongest argument available for treating any register row as a photograph with a timestamp rather than a standing statement.

The empty cells, printed as empty

A live reading that produced almost nothing is itself a finding, so here is the inventory in full.

• Coins: empty array. No settlement currency is recorded at all. Thirty records in the library carry a coin list and the widest runs to forty; this one carries none.
• Verification: every field null. No summary, no clause, no threshold, no deadline, no source page. Forty-nine records describe verification in words and twenty-seven cite a clause; this record does neither.
• Withdrawal ceiling: null. No figure, no period, no clause. Fourteen records state one.
• Restricted-country list: empty. Thirty-eight records publish a list and twenty-nine of those name GB. This record has nothing in the field and no source page for it.

None of that is an accusation. A blank cell in our file means we did not read the thing, full stop, and the terms may say a great deal that our reading did not reach. What it does mean is that the only checkable statements this BC.Game review can make are about two licence rows – and a brand assessed on two licence rows, one of which is revoked, is a brand our own rules will not put in a ranking.

Why there is no rating rather than a low one

The score sheet gives BC.Game one scored component out of seven: licence, 0 of 2.5, with the note licence OGL/2023/118/0060 is Revoked in the register. Every other component is null. The rating field is null too, with the reason licence revoked or removed from the register, and the flag doNotList set.

The difference between a rating of 0.5 and no rating at the end of a BC.Game review is not cosmetic. A low number places a brand at the bottom of a ranking, which is still a place in the ranking, and rankings get sorted, filtered and screenshotted. A null takes it out of the table altogether. Five records in the library carry that flag, and all five carry the same reason.

It is also the rule that protects the rest of the list. A formula that will produce a number for anything can be fed a brand with two readable fields and made to return something respectable; a formula that refuses below three scored components, and refuses outright on a revoked licence, produces fewer rows and fewer of them are noise. Fifty-three records of one hundred come out unrated under those rules. What the survivors look like, and how a record scores when six components are readable, is shown at what a record looks like when six cells are readable.

Six readable components and still no rating

The most instructive comparison for this record is not another revoked brand but the revoked record that was read most thoroughly. Bets.io has six scored components – five more than this one – and no rating either.

Its parts read: licence 0 of 2.5, with the note that OGL/2024/1178/0479 is Revoked in the register; restricted list published 1.5 of 1.5 on a 42-entry list; verification clarity 1.5 of 2 for a clause 5 with no figure; coins 1.5 of 1.5 on twelve currencies; reach 1.3 of 1.5 for refusing 42 countries; and 0 of 1 for reserving a document check from the start. Add the non-licence components and they come to 5.8 points – our arithmetic, not a field in the file – which would have put that record above the median of the forty-seven that are rated.

It gets no rating and carries doNotList instead, because the disqualification is tested before the component count. That order was not always right. The note in the scoring script records that when the revoked branch sat below the minimum-components gate, four brands fell through the gate first, came back as not enough verified facts, and quietly lost the flag – so the one fact that must keep a brand out of every listing was erased by the absence of lesser ones.

That is the argument for the whole arrangement in one paragraph. A revoked row is among the few things about these crypto casinos that is known for certain, straight from a register, and no quantity of well-published coin lists and country tables is allowed to outvote it.

What a record like this is for

Not every entry has to end in a recommendation, and this one ends in a method instead. Two registers were asked the same question about the same domain on the same day and gave two different answers; both are printed, neither is resolved, and the reader is left with the numbers, the companies and the dates to check for themselves.

That is worth more than a verdict, because a verdict has a shelf life of about a month in this data and the clause numbers do not. If the term printed for 1 October 2026 was renewed, the row a reader finds will differ from the row quoted here, and the date beside every figure on this page is what makes that difference visible instead of invisible.

The records that did come out with a score, and the components behind each one, are on the front page: crypto casino UK records that did earn a score. The brands whose paperwork was newest at the time of reading are at the most recent paperwork in the library.