Independence & funding

We charge operators for audit and certification services. We fund independent investigations internally, using our business's own time and resources.

Audit and certification fees are agreed upfront and do not depend on the outcome. We do not take affiliate commissions, revenue share or referral fees from casinos, so we earn nothing from how much players wager or lose.

Nobody commissions or pays us to produce a particular independent investigation. We do not accept payment to target a casino.

Our research can bring attention to our business and show why independent auditing matters. We recognise that commercial benefit. Our safeguards are public evidence, disclosure of relevant relationships, and publishing findings regardless of whether they help or hurt a commercial relationship.

ProvablyFair.org is operated by Mondus Technologies - FZCO in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

We receive player reports and conduct our own research. We prioritise concerns based on the evidence available, whether we can reproduce the issue, the potential harm to players, and our capacity to investigate properly.

Whether a casino has bought, declined or ignored our services does not determine whether we investigate it. Being a client does not protect an operator from investigation.

We cannot investigate every report. A casino we have not investigated should not be treated as approved or cleared by us.

Investigations usually begin with a specific concern. They are not a random sample of casino games.

We publish what the evidence establishes, including checks that pass, findings that do not support the original complaint, and conclusions that remain uncertain. We do not publish an allegation simply because someone submitted it.

A check that passes applies to what we tested. It is not an endorsement of the entire casino.

We publish independent investigations without advance notice to the operator, apart from the limited security exception below.

We want affected players to see the evidence while the operator's response is still being decided. We believe public scrutiny at that stage can be important to securing a complete explanation, a proper fix and compensation for historical losses.

Private notice can allow an operator to fix an issue and announce its own account before players have seen the independent findings. Fixing a game does not, by itself, address what happened to players before the fix.

Public disclosure also gives players an opportunity to save their own bet histories, transaction records and relevant game rules. Those records can help establish what happened. This is a precaution, not an allegation that an operator would alter or delete evidence.

Publishing first places a particular responsibility on us to check our work carefully, preserve supporting evidence and explain its limits. It does not guarantee compensation.

For security vulnerabilities that could expose private information or put accounts or funds at risk, we may notify the operator privately and withhold details that would let someone abuse the issue. We still explain the finding as far as we safely can. The operator does not get a right to suppress the report.

A player report is a starting point, not proof.

We match the evidence to the claim. Some findings can be established through rules, calculations or a small number of reproducible bets. Estimates of returns from observed play need enough data to support a statistical conclusion.

We check the relevant records, rules and calculations, consider alternative explanations, and publish supporting evidence so others can examine our conclusions.

We distinguish what we demonstrated from what remains uncertain. A technical discrepancy does not, by itself, establish deliberate misconduct.

We protect private player information. We may also withhold technical details that would let someone abuse an issue, while explaining the finding and any limits on what readers can reproduce.

Operators and readers can submit explanations, contrary evidence and correction requests through our contact page.

We assess substantive responses and update our reports when the evidence changes. If we make a material error, we correct it and explain the change.

When an operator fixes an issue, we report that and check the fix where possible. We distinguish what the operator says from what we have independently verified.

Fixing a game does not, by itself, address past losses. We report on compensation using the operator's statements, player feedback and other information available to us. We cannot confirm that every affected player has been compensated.

Updates are dated. Original findings remain available with their historical context, and current summaries reflect verified changes.

We approach operators about paid audits. Some respond; others decline or do not reply.

That history does not determine our findings or whether an investigation is published. Alongside each report, we disclose any audit enquiries, sales approaches, proposals or paid work that took place before the report was first published and involved the operator or a known associated business.

An unanswered approach does not exempt a casino from investigation, and it is not a reason to investigate one.

We do not negotiate or accept paid work from an operator, or a known associated business, while our independent investigation is ongoing.

Buying an audit cannot turn an existing investigation into a private engagement, stop publication or remove a finding.

We may consider later work once we have checked the relevant fixes and, in our judgement, the operator has reasonably addressed the impact on affected players. We assess this case by case and may still decline the work.

If an engagement goes ahead, we disclose the relationship and timeline in the audit and add a linked disclosure to the original investigation. The original findings stay public.

An operator never has to buy our services to receive a correction, a fair response or an update recognising a verified fix.

A paid audit is an operator choosing to have its in-house provably fair games independently tested. We agree the engagement and scope before the commissioned audit begins. We do not take on an audit while an independent investigation into that operator is ongoing.

What we test

We cover all of the operator's in-house provably fair games, with the tested versions, configurations and exclusions stated in the report. We:

• Rebuild the games independently from their rules.
• Place real bets through anonymous accounts.
• Calculate expected returns for the configurations and player strategies covered.
• Test how the games behave under stress.

The report identifies which settings and stake levels were tested live. We publish the report, open-source test code and supporting evidence so others can examine and reproduce the checks.

An investigation focuses on a specific concern and gathers the evidence needed to establish what happened. It can examine that issue deeply, but it does not replace the broader testing across games and configurations covered by a paid audit. An investigation does not certify a game.

Fixes and publication

Under our audit contracts, operators have 14 days to fix findings before we have the right to publish them. Findings that prevent a passing verdict must be fixed and pass re-testing before certification. Where a fix genuinely needs more time, we may agree an extension case by case. The published report explains the reason and states the revised deadline.

All audit findings are published, including issues fixed during the engagement. The public record shows the original issue, the response and the result of any re-check. Security-sensitive details are handled as explained above.

Paying does not buy a passing result, softer findings or a right to suppress the report. Where players have been harmed, fixing the game does not remove the need to address that harm.

What certification means

The fee pays for the work and is the same whether the audit passes or fails. Certification depends on the results and covers only the published scope.

Certification shows that the operator chose independent testing with public results, and that the stated games, versions and configurations met our published criteria.

To submit evidence, challenge a finding or request a correction, contact us.

If you are reporting a possible game issue, Player help explains which records to save and how to prepare your evidence. Keep personal account information private.

We date material changes to this policy and explain what changed.