MyStake Sister Sites

Does MyStake have confirmed sister sites?

Not officially confirmed by the operator, but reported by multiple independent sources. MyStake doesn’t publish a sister-site page, group ownership chart, or a UK-style regulatory register entry that would let a researcher confirm brand relationships in a single, authoritative place. What does exist is a consistent pattern across trade press and independent casino-research sites: MyStake is repeatedly named alongside brands such as Velobet, Donbet, Goldenbet, Cosmobet and Rolletto as part of the same Curaçao-licensed operator group, historically identified as Santeda International B.V.

That’s a meaningfully different situation from a UKGC-regulated group like Entain or Flutter, where sister-brand relationships are typically traceable through company filings, licence registers and investor documents. With MyStake, the strongest evidence available is reported rather than disclosed – and that distinction matters for how much weight you should put on any single claim, including this one.

Recent trade reporting adds another layer of complexity. In early 2026, industry outlets reported that the group behind MyStake had shifted several brands to a different Curaçao licensing entity following scrutiny, which is worth understanding before you treat any “confirmed” sister-site list as fixed and permanent. We’ll walk through what’s solid, what’s shifting, and what still needs manual verification.

What is MyStake, and who has been reported to run it?

MyStake is an online sportsbook-and-casino hybrid that launched around 2020 and has built a large user base internationally, including among UK-based players, despite not holding a UK Gambling Commission licence. That single fact shapes almost everything else in this article, so it’s worth stating plainly and early rather than burying it in small print.

The Santeda International B.V. era

For most of MyStake’s operating history, independent reviewers and licensing footers have pointed to Santeda International B.V., a Curaçao-registered company, as the entity behind the brand.
MyStake Casino UK is not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission and is not part of the a national self-exclusion service scheme, and it operates under a Curaçao licence issued to Santeda International B.V.
That basic ownership claim shows up consistently enough across independent sources that it’s reasonable to treat it as the best-supported starting point, even though it isn’t something MyStake itself has issued as a formal disclosure statement in the way a UKGC operator would.

The 2026 licence-shuffle reporting

Where things get less settled is what happened next. Trade publication NEXT.io reported that
the group behind MyStake, thought to be one of the most-used black market operators among British customers, was moving its brands to a new offshore licence following recent scrutiny, with sites including Velobet, Donbet, Goldenbet and MyStake previously all licensed in Curaçao through Santeda International B.V.
The same reporting noted that
the footer of their websites now instead lists a company called GTW B.V, which holds a B2C licence that the Curaçao register says was granted in June and expired last December.

A parallel report from Tribuna.com framed this as part of a recognisable industry pattern rather than a one-off event, quoting GAMRS chief executive Jordan Lea directly:
"Changing licence is a common tactic in the black market ecosystem. When regulatory pressure or consumer redress becomes a problem, providers simply wipe the slate clean,"
he said, adding that his organisation would keep tracking the network’s activity. This is an important piece of context: it means any ownership snapshot – including this one – has a shelf life, and it’s worth re-checking rather than assuming permanence.

Why this affects sister-site research specifically

If a licence entity changes, the brands nominally sitting under it can shuffle too, at least on paper. That’s part of why we’re framing MyStake’s sister-site picture as reported rather than confirmed and static. A network that has recently changed its licensing footer is not the kind of stable ground you want to build firm, long-term claims on – and neither should you.

Licence details: what’s actually verifiable

One of the clearest signs that a brand’s licensing picture is unsettled is inconsistency in the basic facts. That’s exactly what turns up when you compare independent reviews of MyStake side by side.

Four different sources, four different licence numbers, and two different named entities. That spread is not unusual for offshore-facing brands that don’t sit inside a UK-style public register, but it’s exactly the kind of detail a cautious researcher should flag rather than smooth over.
The site’s footer says it holds a B2C Curaçao licence – OGL/2024/250/0115, but it expired and apparently has not been renewed, and MyStake Casino doesn’t have a valid UKGC licence to offer gambling services to the British audience.

What is consistent, across every single source we reviewed, is the headline point: MyStake does not hold a UK Gambling Commission licence.
MyStake are not licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, meaning they are not legally able to provide gambling services to customers in the country.
That’s the one fact worth anchoring everything else to.

The reported network: brands linked to MyStake

Independent research and comparison sites – not MyStake itself – repeatedly name the same handful of brands as sitting inside the same operator family.
The official sister sites owned by Santeda include Velobet, Donbet, Goldenbet, and Cosmobet, with Rolletto also considered a sister site due to the shared platform.
Separate reporting on a related brand’s outage corroborates the same grouping:
Mystake, Goldenbet, Donbet, Velobet, Cosmobet, Freshbet and Rolletto – brands long linked to Curaçao operator Santeda International B.V. – went dark on the evening of Sunday, June 14, some showing 404 errors and others stripped of their game libraries.

Notice the wording in that right-hand column: reported, not confirmed by the operator. That’s a deliberate distinction. None of these relationships appear on an official MyStake ownership or sister-brand disclosure page, which is a normal feature of UKGC-regulated groups but is not something offshore Curaçao-licensed operators are typically required to publish. If you’re used to checking a page like our own Entain brand network breakdown, where ownership is documented through public listing filings, this is a much thinner evidentiary picture by comparison.

Why the missing UKGC licence changes the whole risk conversation

For UK-focused research, the licensing gap isn’t a footnote – it’s the single biggest factor shaping how you should read everything else about this brand.
A UKGC licence isn’t just a badge – it’s a legal obligation for operators to segregate player funds, submit to independent RTP audits, honour a national self-exclusion service self-exclusion, and provide access to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) or another approved ADR scheme for disputes.
None of that applies here in the same way.

Practically, this means:

• No a national self-exclusion service connection.
  MyStake Casino is not part of the a national self-exclusion service scheme since it is not licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, though its customers can reportedly enable self-exclusion at any time for a period from 6 months to 5 years via a request to support.
  
• No UKGC dispute route. Complaints would need to go through Curaçao’s framework rather than a UK-recognised alternative dispute resolution scheme.
• Wider media scrutiny.
  The renewed attention followed a GAMRS investigative report and a Guardian investigation outlining the extent of the network and its lack of safeguards, with one report suggesting punters – the majority of whom were British – bet £1.2bn with MyStake and £3.51bn across the wider Santeda network in 2025.
  

That last point is worth sitting with. A figure like that doesn’t tell you whether any individual player was treated fairly, but it does tell you the scale at which UK customers have reportedly been interacting with an unregulated brand – which is exactly the kind of context that should inform any decision to sign up.

What’s reported about bonuses and payments – and why we’re not repeating it as fact

Bonus and payment details for offshore brands change frequently and are rarely independently audited in the way a UKGC operator’s terms are checked. With that caveat firmly in place, here’s what turns up repeatedly across reviews:

Bonus structure, as reported

MyStake Casino is described as offering a welcome package of a 300% match up to €1,500, split across the first three payments, with a minimum deposit limit of €10 or equivalent and a 30x wagering requirement.
For comparison,
most MyStake bonus offers carry a 30x wagering requirement, which is high compared to the 10x cap on the GB regulated market.
That gap is a useful benchmark: it’s not a claim about whether the bonus is good or bad, just a reminder that offshore wagering terms are often structured differently from what UK-regulated brands are required to offer.

Payments, as reported

Reviews describe a mix of cards, e-wallets and cryptocurrency.
Users are described as being able to deposit and withdraw in BTC, XRP and other cryptocurrencies, alongside fiat money via e-wallets, bank cards for deposit only, and bank transfers.
Deposit minimums and processing times vary between reviewer accounts, which is itself a signal that terms may shift without a formal, tracked change log the way UKGC operators are required to maintain.

None of this should be read as a recommendation. It’s a summary of what’s being reported, filed here precisely so you can see it’s sourced to third-party reviews rather than to anything MyStake has published as a fixed, current policy.

How to verify sister-site and ownership claims yourself

Rather than take any single article – including this one – as the final word, here’s a practical checklist for testing ownership and sister-brand claims on any offshore-facing operator.

1. Check the site footer directly. Licensing entity names and licence numbers are usually listed there, and as shown above, they can change without much fanfare.
2. Cross-reference the Curaçao register. Licence numbers can be checked against the relevant Curaçao gaming authority’s public listings, bearing in mind registers can lag behind real-world changes.
3. Look for independent trade press, not just review sites. Outlets that cover regulatory and compliance news tend to have sourced, dated reporting that’s easier to verify than promotional review content.
4. Compare multiple independent sources, not one. If three or four unrelated sites name the same sister brands, that’s stronger evidence than a single claim.
5. Note the publication date. Ownership and licensing pictures for offshore brands can shift quickly, as the 2025-into-2026 Santeda-to-GTW reporting shows.
6. Separate "reported" from "official." A brand that doesn’t publish its own group structure requires more legwork – and more caution – than one that does.

This is the same discipline we apply across our own research method, and it’s worth applying it yourself before treating any sister-site list as settled fact.

MyStake versus a documented UK network: a comparison

It helps to see the contrast side by side. UK-regulated multi-brand groups are required to make certain ownership and licensing facts traceable; offshore-facing operators generally aren’t.

None of this means every reported detail about MyStake is false – it means the burden of verification sits much more heavily on the researcher, and much less on the operator’s own disclosures. That’s the core reason our wider sister-sites hub treats UKGC-documented networks and offshore-reported networks as fundamentally different research problems, even when the end question – "who else is connected to this brand?" – sounds the same.

Reading the wider network context

If you’re comparing MyStake against brands you already know from the regulated UK market, it’s worth remembering that groups like bet365, Ladbrokes or Unibet operate inside a completely different disclosure environment. Our networks section exists specifically to separate documented UK groups from murkier offshore pictures like this one, and our broader guides walk through how to read a licence footer, a company register entry, or a trade-press report without over-claiming what it proves.

What this means for your decision, not just your research

Sister-site research isn’t just an academic exercise – it usually feeds into a practical decision: whether to sign up somewhere, and how much trust to extend to a brand’s bonus terms, payment promises or account handling. With MyStake, the honest summary is this: there is a consistently reported network (Velobet, Donbet, Goldenbet, Cosmobet, Rolletto, and occasionally Freshbet), built around a Curaçao licensing structure that has itself recently changed hands on paper, and none of it carries UK regulatory backing. That combination – real but unofficial network evidence, plus an unstable licensing picture, plus no UKGC oversight – is exactly the profile that deserves extra caution rather than extra enthusiasm.

If UK regulatory protection, a national self-exclusion service participation, or a formal complaints route matter to you, that’s worth weighing before anything else on this list, including bonus size or game count. For general context on how self-exclusion and safer-gambling tools function within UK-regulated services, our responsible gambling resource is a useful starting point, and our about page explains how we approach research like this across the wider site.

What still needs manual verification

To be direct about the limits of this article: the exact current licensing entity behind MyStake (Santeda International B.V. versus the reported GTW B.V. shift), the precise and current licence number, the full and final list of sister brands, and any live bonus or payment terms are all things that can change after publication and were not independently confirmed by us beyond what’s cited above. Anyone relying on this for a live decision should re-check the operator’s own current footer and terms directly, rather than treating any single article – including this one – as a permanent record.