Scores55 Tech B.V.

Scores55 Tech B.V. — one licence, the best-rated casino family in our catalogue, and the paperwork most desks still get wrong

Most of the networks this series maps earn their pages by what goes wrong at them. This one earns its page the other way around — and by what almost everyone writing about it gets wrong. Scores55 Tech B.V. (Curaçao, registration 162990) operates a family of crypto-forward casinos on a single Curaçao Gaming Authority licence, OGL/2024/1307/0748, granted 16 July 2024 and showing as Active — a licence we have now certificate-verified ourselves on three separate domains. The confirmed members are KatsuBet, 7Bit, RocketPlay, Mirax and mBit Casino; nothing in this family remains attribution-only. Four of the five carry Very High safety ratings — 9.4, 9.2, 9.1 and 9.0 — the fifth is an operator in the industry’s largest revenue class with clean authenticity checks; and, a rarity this series usually documents in the negative, the licence presentation on the family’s own pages is exactly right: live regulator seal, entity, registration and licence number stated in full, matching the certificates we pulled.

None of that makes this a page without findings. The family carries a deposit-turnover rule whose structure is now confirmed across the estate — with a split most players will never notice until it is applied against them; a dispute framework with no external complaints route, which at one member adds the lowest liability cap in our catalogue; per-brand differences running from cashier schedules to the restricted lists themselves, which make copying a sister’s numbers an error in either direction; and a corporate history so widely mis-told that sources published this month still attribute these casinos to operators that no longer run them and licences that no longer exist. That history turns out to be the family’s most interesting structural fact: this operator is where two separate historical estates converge. The record here is genuinely strong. The reader’s job — and ours — is to know precisely what it is strong at, and where the structure leaves a player on their own.

The convergence point — and the corrections that matter

These brands share lineages — plural. Most of the family previously operated under Dama N.V., a name that for years served as the standard attribution for a large stable of crypto casinos. That estate did not migrate to a successor as one block: it fragmented into at least two, in two different jurisdictions. One group of former Dama brands now operates under Novatrix SRL on a licence in a different tier — a family this series documents separately — while KatsuBet, 7Bit, RocketPlay and mBit moved to Scores55 under the Curaçao licence above. Mirax arrived by a different road: it is documented across desks as a former Hollycorn N.V. brand — a second historical estate, whose other brands this series likewise tracks under their own separate successor — and it now sits, certificate-verified by us, on the same Scores55 licence as its ex-Dama siblings. Two predecessor estates, multiple successors, and one operator where lines from both converge.

One further fact sharpens the picture, and we state it precisely. Scores55’s registered address, Scharlooweg 39 in Willemstad, is the registered address of Hollycorn N.V. itself. A shared corporate-services address, on its own, proves nothing — this series has documented several and inferred ownership from none. Here it does not stand on its own: it sits alongside a documented brand succession from that very estate onto this operator’s licence. We publish both facts as facts — the succession and the address — and we assert nothing beyond them: nothing in our file establishes that Scores55 is either predecessor renamed, and we do not claim it.

The wider review ecosystem has largely failed to register any of this. Desks — including at least one writing in 2026 — still describe a single operator group and file brands from different successors under it, crediting this family’s operator with casinos our own records verify first-party as belonging elsewhere: PlayAmo and Winz.io, both documented in our files under Novatrix, appear in circulation as Scores55 brands. They are not. Mirax, meanwhile, is still widely attributed to Hollycorn and its retired licence string — and at the family’s longest-running member the stale record runs three layers deep, with an even earlier corporate name from the mid-2010s still cited beside the two retired successors. Every member review in this family leads with the correction, because on this cluster the operator line is the single most error-prone fact in public circulation — and the certificate, not the citation chain, is what settles it.

Five confirmed — nothing left on attribution

All five brands are confirmed on the shared licence, at documentation depth stated per brand: three carry our own certificate pulls, one is independently reported certificate-verified, one displays the licence on its own pages with our pull pending. The table is the family at a glance — each brand with the facts that most define its place in it.

One licence, correctly worn

The whole family sits on one licence: OGL/2024/1307/0748, granted 16 July 2024, Active — the single-licence multi-domain model this series has now documented at three networks. We have verified the certificate ourselves on three domains — the flagship’s, Mirax’s and mBit’s — while the same string is reported certificate-verified for the veteran brand and displayed by the fifth member on its own pages, with our two remaining registry pulls a formality on a licence already three times confirmed. What distinguishes this family is the presentation. Elsewhere in this series we have documented an estate that under-declares its own granted licence on every one of its domains, footers frozen in a pre-grant past; here the family’s footers carry the live regulator seal with the operating entity, registration number and licence number stated in full, all matching the certificates. It is a low bar, and the industry fails it constantly; this operator clears it.

Two caveats keep the compliment honest. First, the tier: this is a standard Curaçao licence, and a licence tier sets a ceiling on how far any safety framing can responsibly go — a 9-point-something rating does not upgrade the regulator behind it. Second, the stale layer described above cuts in both directions: a reader who checks these brands against older sources will find dead operators and dead licence numbers presented as current. The register is the instrument; everything else is commentary with a publication date.

No referee in the structure — and a €100 ceiling at one member

This is the family’s clearest structural weakness, and it deserves its own section because it is the one thing a player cannot work around. There is no alternative dispute resolution body anywhere in this cluster. The terms keep complaints internal to the operator, and the formal escalation they provide is arbitration seated in Cyprus, behind a one-year claim bar that contractually extinguishes older disputes. Other licence tiers in our catalogue provide an external route a player can actually invoke; this structure does not, and the practical consequence is plain: if a disagreement with this operator survives its internal process, the next step is not a form and a case number — it is arbitration proceedings in a foreign seat, inside twelve months, or nothing.

At mBit, the family’s veteran, the gap deepens by two clauses. Its contract caps the operator’s total liability at €100 — the lowest such cap in our catalogue, at a casino whose own withdrawal ceilings are denominated in whole bitcoins — and reserves the selection of the arbitrator to the operator itself. We do not suggest either clause is routinely invoked; we note what they mean on paper: at that brand, the contractual worst case for the operator is one hundred euros, decided by an arbitrator of its own choosing. Strong ratings measure how rarely it comes to that. They do not change what happens when it does. Every account decision at this family should be made with that asymmetry in view, and the practical section below is written around it.

The split is the constant; the multiplier is the variable

The single most important reader-facing disclosure on this cluster is a deposit rule, not a bonus rule — and it is now confirmed first-party at two brands, which settles its shape. Before withdrawing, deposits must be turned over, and the requirement splits by where you play: through slots it is mild — 3× the deposit at the flagship, and only 1× at mBit — but through table and live games it is 10× at both, with a processing fee as the alternative. The structure, in other words, is estate-wide; the slots multiplier is the per-brand variable, and the 10× table leg is the constant. The headline most players will encounter is the mild figure; the 10× is the half of the rule that finds them at the cashier. The concern is not hypothetical: a documented watchdog complaint describes exactly this requirement escalating mid-play from the slots figure to the table figure at the flagship, with support unresponsive while it did. Check your own brand’s slots multiplier — and assume the table leg regardless. Table and live players at this family are on materially different terms from slots players, and nothing on the deposit screen says so.

Generous ceilings — that differ by brand

The cashier architecture is, by this series’ standards, generous — and unusually honest in one respect. Withdrawal caps at the flagship and the veteran 7Bit run €10,000 a week and €40,000 a month; mBit’s are the family’s most generous and denominated in crypto — 3 BTC a week, 10 BTC a month, with a jackpot exception; above the monthly cap, larger wins are paid in monthly installments rather than voided or clawed back — a mechanism that pays out on a schedule, which is a different thing from a cap, and worth crediting as such. Maximum bets are high — €50 on slots and up to €150 elsewhere, with none of the €2–€5 straitjackets this series documents elsewhere. The welcome match and high-roller bonuses carry an unlimited maximum cashout, which is close to unheard of in this catalogue. At one member, crypto payouts run near-instant — minutes, not days — with no casino-side fees.

The qualifications are specific. RocketPlay’s numbers diverge: the same €10,000 week but a €20,000 month — half the flagship’s — with installments beginning above €15,000 rather than €40,000. Mirax’s caps are not yet in our file at all. One family, one licence, three cashier schedules and one unknown: never carry a sibling’s figures across, and treat any third-party page that does as unverified — the same discipline applies to smaller conveniences, since even app availability differs brand by brand here. Dormancy is two designs, not one: the flagship charges the mildest fee we track after a year’s inactivity, while mBit charges nothing — and then forfeits the balance outright at 36 months of abandonment; mild monthly erosion at one brand, a distant cliff at the other, and neither transfers to its sibling. Verification runs on documents in Latin or Cyrillic script or by video, with a phone or video call reserved in the terms — and at one member, reported delays on large-withdrawal verification say the step is not a formality. And one clause belongs in every player’s mental file: a player who remains unreachable for 180 days after a withdrawal request faces account closure with funds forfeited. It is a clause with a legitimate anti-abandonment rationale and a severe worst case; the mitigation costs nothing and is listed below.

Per-brand lists, per-coin lobbies

The flagship’s restricted list runs to 212 jurisdictions and the veteran’s to 213 — the longest in our catalogue — and here this family delivers its most instructive per-brand finding yet: the two lists diverge in both directions. Markets open at one brand are restricted at the other, and vice versa, inside a single licence and a single operator. A restricted list in this cluster is a per-brand document, full stop — the list of the casino you actually play at is the only one that governs you, and any page that recycles a sibling’s is wrong by construction. Under the lists, the standing contradiction from this series’ catalogue is present in mild form: one currency is accepted at the cashier while its home market appears on the flagship’s restricted list.

The lobby, meanwhile, is not the same casino everywhere — or, at the crypto-only member, even for everyone in the same country. Provider geo-blocking is extensive and enumerated: one major studio is barred in dozens of territories, branded titles carry their own country lists, and progressive jackpots from that studio are annulled by rule for players in a set of named countries even though the family’s own jackpot policy otherwise pays progressive wins in full — a rule that matters at the brands we have documented carrying that studio. And mBit adds a mechanic we have not documented anywhere else in this catalogue: the lobby varies by deposit coin, with per-coin provider lists in the terms under which certain coins lose entire major studios — live-dealer suites included. Your currency choice at that brand is a content choice, made before you ever see the lobby. A player chasing a specific title, studio or jackpot should confirm it is available — and eligible — from their market and in their coin before depositing, because the terms put the burden of both checks on the player.

One further note belongs to the responsible-gambling file, and it cuts both ways. The flagship’s terms declare that deposit limits cannot be applied to crypto deposits — a gap this series has seen before. mBit disproves the inevitability: crypto-only, it denominates its limits in crypto and ships the deepest first-party responsible-gambling toolkit we have on file, with protective friction built into limit increases. The gap, in other words, is a design choice, not a technical constraint — worth knowing at the brands that keep it. One member also ships a session-monitoring tool a hands-on reviewer found genuinely useful.

The strongest set of scores in this series

Read as a family, the record is the strongest this series has documented. Four members hold Very High ratings from the major watchdog — 9.4 at the flagship, 9.2 at mBit, 9.1 at 7Bit, 9.0 at Mirax — two alongside industry trust certifications from a major complaints platform; the fifth is an operator in the watchdog’s largest revenue class with clean game-authenticity results. The paper matches the scores: a granted, active licence, certificate-verified by us on three domains, worn correctly on the sites themselves. Nothing else in our catalogue currently combines all of that, and this page says so without hedging.

What the scores do not do is close the file — and at the veteran, two items keep it visibly open. mBit’s aggregate user sentiment across a large review base runs materially below its siblings’, and one review desk’s measurements suggest a below-default return configuration at that brand — a finding we treat as open rather than established, and have queued for the operator directly; until it is answered, it stays on this page as a question, not a verdict. More broadly, the scores coexist with the turnover split and its documented mid-play escalation; with a dispute structure that offers no external route and, at one member, a €100 liability ceiling; with per-brand differences that now extend from cashier schedules to the restricted lists themselves; with reported verification delays on large withdrawals at one brand; and with a public attribution record so noisy that this family’s own identity is routinely mis-stated. A rating measures how an operator runs its terms. This page’s job is the terms themselves — and the structure around them — and on both, the findings above stand regardless of the number at the top of any listing.

Two predecessor estates, overlapping names

The fragmentation described at the top of this page left the successor families with a naming overlap that is itself a hazard. 7Bit, on this licence, is not 21Bit, which our files verify first-party under the other Dama successor. RocketPlay, on this licence, is not Casino Rocket, verified under the other Hollycorn successor. PlayAmo and Winz.io, whatever stale pages say, are not Scores55 brands — and Mirax, whatever stale pages say, no longer belongs to the predecessor entity still cited beside its name. Every one of these collisions is live in our catalogue right now, and at least one widely read source has already merged two successor estates into a single fictional operator group. The brands on this page are defined by their live domains, the operator named on their certificates, and the licence string above — verify those three things before attaching any datum from this report to a casino, and before attaching any other casino’s history to these.

Practical steps, in order of impact

Decide where you will play before you decide when to withdraw: the deposit-turnover structure runs estate-wide, with a mild slots figure — check your own brand’s, they differ — and 10× through table and live games, or a fee; the documented escalation case says the distinction is enforced. At the crypto-only member, choose your deposit coin with the lobby in mind: per-coin provider lists mean some coins lose entire studios, so check the list for your coin before funding, not after. Stay reachable after every withdrawal request and keep your contact details current: the terms allow closure with forfeiture after 180 days of unreachability, and an up-to-date email address is the entire defence — and at mBit, do not abandon a funded account at all, because the balance forfeits outright at 36 months. If you are considering self-exclusion at that brand with money still pending, know the design: self-exclusion blocks withdrawals while cooling-off does not, so clear your balance first or use the cooling-off tool, and involve support for anything by-request. Put any dispute in writing early — the claim bar runs at one year, there is no external complaints body in this structure, and at one member the contract caps operator liability at €100 with an operator-selected arbitrator: your dated paper trail is the only leverage that survives the internal process. Use your own brand’s numbers for everything — caps, installments, dormancy, apps, and the restricted list itself, which differs between siblings in both directions; read the pages of the casino you actually play at, not a family summary, including this one. If you play for jackpots or specific studios, confirm from your own market — and in your own coin — that the title is available and its jackpot eligible. Verify your identity early with clean camera originals in Latin or Cyrillic script, and expect the possibility of a video step, especially before a large withdrawal. And on any bonus, note which portions carry the unlimited cashout and which carry the standard 10× cap — the difference is the offer.

Cover per-brand, and lead with the paper

This family enters our catalogue as its strongest cluster — and now its most fully documented one: five brands, all confirmed, three on certificates we pulled ourselves, four at Very High, an operator that turns out to be the convergence point of two historical estates the rest of the industry still writes about in the past tense, and cashier ceilings that treat winners as customers rather than adversaries. Coverage proceeds per-brand on that basis — with the disclosures that keep it honest attached to every member page: the operator correction, because the public record is wrong more often than it is right; the turnover split, because the mild half of the rule is the half that gets quoted; the absence of any external dispute route — with its one-year bar, and at one member a €100 liability ceiling — because that is the structural risk no rating offsets; and the per-brand differences in cashiers, lists and lobbies, because one licence does not mean one rulebook, and in this family it does not even mean one map. The open items are stated as such: two remaining registry pulls, Mirax’s full terms, the return-configuration question at the veteran, and the family’s affiliate-program identity. The record will move as those close, and this page will move with it.

Information accurate at time of research (July 2026) — based on first-party regulator certificate checks on three domains, operator footers and published terms, affiliate materials, and third-party listings and complaint records. Licence statuses and terms change; verify the operating entity, licence status and restricted list on the live site before signing up.