Origin of the deposit
A transaction hash can show that crypto moved. It cannot, by itself, explain how you earned the money used to buy it. When a casino asks for source of funds, find which part of that history it is trying to establish before sending another wallet screenshot.
Your reply should connect the origin of the money to the deposit being checked. That may require several records, especially when the purchase, wallet transfer and casino deposit happened on different services.
| Question being checked | Record that may answer it | What remains unproven |
|---|---|---|
| Where did the money come from? | The requested income, sale, savings or other origin record | A wallet balance alone does not explain that origin. |
| How was the crypto acquired? | An exchange purchase or conversion record linked to the funding payment | A purchase entry alone may not show who owns the exchange account. |
| Whose account made the purchase? | The account-holder record and any ownership proof the casino specifically requests | A name on one account does not automatically establish ownership of every wallet in the chain. |
| How did it reach the casino? | The exchange withdrawal, correct-network transaction record and casino deposit entry | An on-chain transfer alone does not confirm a casino balance credit. |
| Why do the amounts differ? | The conversion, network fee and transfer records for the relevant steps | An unexplained estimate does not reconcile the difference. |
These are possible evidence roles, not a universal document list. Use the casino's actual request to decide which records are needed.
Begin with the casino deposit amount, asset, network and date. Find the outgoing entry that funded it. If the crypto first came from an exchange, connect that withdrawal to the purchase or conversion there, then to the money used for the purchase.
A self-hosted wallet adds a transfer step; it does not create a named account statement. An exchange may provide both transaction history and an account-holder record. Keep their jobs separate: one records the movement, the other can help establish whose account was involved.
Write a short explanation of each handoff. Include fees and conversions where they account for a difference. If you cannot substantiate a step, identify the missing record and ask what alternative the reviewer accepts. Do not describe an unsupported link as confirmed.
Explain that the identified casino deposit was crypto and name its asset and network. Ask whether the field concerns the casino transfer or an earlier bank payment to an exchange. If it concerns the crypto transfer, request the accepted wallet or exchange alternative rather than inventing bank details.
Ask for the exact ownership method and use the authenticated support route. A screenshot of an address may show an interface without establishing control. Never send a seed phrase, private key, password or login code as ownership evidence.
Connect the purchase to the relevant funding entry and the requested origin document. Sending only the later casino transaction leaves that earlier question unanswered.
Separate the origin review from a transfer problem. If the casino is discussing a withdrawal that has not arrived, follow the payment stage and network instead.
Trace the crypto withdrawalA clear screenshot can still be the wrong format. Stake's source-of-income help, for example, requires an original photograph or PDF and says screenshots are not accepted. That is a condition of that particular review, not a rule you can assume for every casino.
Read the request for document type, date range, holder details and whether the entire document must be visible. Do not crop an original to make it prettier or hide a field the reviewer needs. If it contains unrelated sensitive information, ask which redactions are permitted before altering the submission copy. Keep the original securely.
Use the casino's deposit reference, date, amount, asset and network. Include a timezone for timestamps. Keep these identifiers out of a public post.
Describe the money's origin, acquisition of the crypto and transfers to the casino. Include only the steps that actually occurred.
Give the files descriptive names and state which step each answers. Preserve full originals and the version you submitted.
Explain a fee, conversion, name difference or intermediary account using its actual record. Ask what is missing where the connection remains unclear.
Upload through the account's designated verification route or a support channel confirmed there. An unsolicited social message is not a reason to disclose financial documents.
Save the upload acknowledgement, review result and any follow-up request. A successful upload means the file was sent; it does not mean the reviewer accepted it.
Reply against the previous submission reference. State which record covers each requested step, then ask which link, field or format remains unsatisfied. A response that says only 'source of funds required' does not tell you whether the problem is origin, account ownership or the transfer trail.
If support gives a rejection reason, correct that reason rather than sending the same packet again. If it will not identify the missing information or provide a review outcome, preserve the repeated requests and replies for a documented complaint. Keep the requested correction specific: review the identified documents and explain the remaining requirement.
It helps establish a blockchain transfer. It does not normally answer how the money was earned or connect a real person to the earlier purchase. Match it with the origin and ownership records actually requested.
List the actual transfers connecting the relevant crypto to the casino deposit. Explain why each step appears and ask what ownership evidence is required. Do not assume that every intermediary address is yours or that the reviewer can reconstruct the route without context.
Keep it in the private evidence packet unless there is a specific reason to disclose it. A public hash or wallet address can reveal transaction activity and allow readers to follow related transfers. A redacted public explanation can describe the issue without exposing those identifiers.
It establishes the outcome of that review. Check separately whether the withdrawal was approved, sent and credited. Other requirements or payment stages can remain outstanding.
Separate the origin question from identity verification.
Find which checks can actually be completed early.
Work from the specific format or information defect.
