CCC–092 · Solpump investigation
Is Solpump a Scam or Legit?
Published Updated
Quick Answer
We found no clear evidence that Solpump is a scam. Its Crash rules can be checked, but that does not prove every payout or wallet claim.
Crash’s published 95% return is lower than Bitsler Crash Pro’s 98% figure, and Solpump can still ask for ID before releasing funds.
- Casino score
- 57/100
- Evidence grade
- C
Casino score rates the operator. The evidence grade reflects how well our findings are supported.
In this investigation
- The useful distinction: checkable results, conditional payouts
- What the Crash verifier actually checks
- Crash and Coinflip do not use the same final calculation
- Where the “on-chain” claim stops being a complete answer
- Solpump Crash versus Bitsler Crash Pro: the maths comparison
- Hourly airdrops are an activity reward, not a free income stream
- Questions that still matter
- Score and evidence
- Sources
The useful distinction: checkable results, conditional payouts
Solpump has something worth examining: a published Crash calculation, rather than just a fairness badge. Its own FAQ also gives a 95% theoretical return for Crash. That is enough to compare the game’s stated mathematics with another Crash product; it is not enough to certify the whole business.
The assessment below is for solpump.io. A matching name, token ticker or social handle does not establish that another Solpump domain has the same operator. The site names 3-102-932956 Ltd in Costa Rica and displays Tuvalu licence GLN-9301. Those are operator disclosures; this case does not mark the licence as independently verified.
What the Crash verifier actually checks
The public verifier combines the revealed server seed and public seed with HMAC-SHA256, then converts the output into a multiplier. Its explicit divisibility branch produces a 1.00× result. The remaining branch derives a multiplier from the first 52 bits and rounds down to two decimal places. Published Crash algorithm.
- CommitmentKeep the server-seed hash shown before the round.
- CalculationRecompute the finished result from the revealed inputs.
- MatchCompare both the commitment and the recorded multiplier.
These checks answer different questions. Reproducing a multiplier proves that those inputs produce that output. Matching the earlier commitment additionally shows that the server seed was not replaced after you saw the outcome. Without the earlier hash, a successful calculation is incomplete evidence about the live round.
The public page’s recent-round table did not provide a complete usable round record in our capture. The example below therefore uses explicitly invented demonstration seeds. It checks our implementation against the published formula; it is not a claim that we witnessed a real wager or payment.
Recalculate a completed Crash result
Demo inputs are supplied. Replace them only with revealed seeds from a finished round; never enter a wallet recovery phrase.
Runs locally. No wallet connection, future prediction or transaction.
Crash and Coinflip do not use the same final calculation
| Game | Published operation | What the reader can conclude |
|---|---|---|
| Crash | HMAC followed by a divisibility test and multiplier formula | A finished multiplier can be recalculated from its revealed inputs. |
| Coinflip | HMAC followed by a numerical conversion and LOW/HIGH threshold | The method produces a side, not a Crash multiplier. |
The Coinflip page publishes its own transformation. A check made against Crash cannot validate Coinflip, and neither validates Blackjack or Keno automatically. Even a shared seed generator leaves the payout table and conversion into game outcomes to be examined separately. Coinflip’s separate verifier.
There is also a reproducibility detail in the displayed Coinflip code: it parses 16 hexadecimal characters into a JavaScript Number. That can exceed the exact-integer range of that number type. An independent implementation that uses exact integers could disagree at an edge case even when fed the same hash. We flag the implementation detail, not a demonstrated exploit; the published sample alone does not establish what runs on the live server.
Where the “on-chain” claim stops being a complete answer
Solpump’s About page describes direct wallet play and open-source, audited contracts. The FAQ similarly says funds remain in the personal wallet until a bet. Those descriptions are not a substitute for a specific deployed program address, its current permissions and a linked audit covering that deployment. Wallet and audit claims.
| Evidence | Can establish | Does not establish alone |
|---|---|---|
| Wallet transfer | An identified address received SOL | Who can release a game balance |
| Finished-round result | The published formula reproduces a multiplier | That the winnings were paid |
| Payout transaction | A particular transfer settled | That every player balance is fully backed |
The December 2025 AML policy reserves account checks, withdrawal restrictions and requests for identity or source-of-funds information. It also discusses accounts funded from both hosted and personal wallets. That is materially more conditional than a blanket claim of payments with no operator intervention. Solpump AML policy.
The practical reading is simple: the transfer, game result and withdrawal approval are separate events. If a withdrawal has no transaction signature yet, the chain cannot confirm it. If there is a signature, its destination and amount can be checked independently. Our withdrawal-stage guide explains which record resolves each situation.
Solpump Crash versus Bitsler Crash Pro: the maths comparison
| Criterion | Solpump Crash | Bitsler Crash Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Published return | 95% in Solpump FAQ | 98% optimal RTP on the game page |
| Corresponding theoretical edge | 5% | 2% at the published optimal setting |
| House-edge equivalent per 100 units wagered | 5 units | 2 units |
| Meaning | A larger mathematical cost at the stated return | A lower published mathematical cost; settings still matter |
On that narrow criterion, Bitsler has the better published figure: a three-percentage-point return difference. The calculation is 100 minus RTP, applied to total stakes. It is not a forecast for a 100-unit deposit, and it does not predict the next round or guarantee a smaller actual loss. Solpump Crash RTP. Bitsler Crash Pro game information.
This is why Bitsler is the commercial alternative here. It offers a comparable multiplier game with a lower stated edge, rather than merely having a larger catalogue. We are not ranking the two operators’ custody, support or licence protection from a game percentage.
Hourly airdrops are an activity reward, not a free income stream
The FAQ links airdrop eligibility to 0.001 SOL wagered during the previous hour and participation in chat. Its daily-case offer has separate code and social-linking conditions. Neither description establishes a fixed hourly payment to every visitor. Airdrop and case conditions.
A reward can offset part of gaming costs only after it is actually credited and usable. Counting the largest advertised case outcome as the value of each claim would ignore the probability distribution. No such distribution was available in the reviewed material, so this page does not assign an expected cash value to the case.
Questions that still matter
What if the calculator matches the multiplier but not the earlier seed hash?
Then the full commitment check has not passed. A matching result alone does not show that the server used the seed committed before that round.
Do repeated stakes change what the 95% figure applies to?
Yes: the mathematical return is defined over stakes, not the initial deposit. Reusing a balance creates additional turnover; it does not turn the deposit into a protected 95% repayment.
Is solpump.com treated as an approved mirror?
No. This investigation records solpump.io. No first-party connection sufficient to approve the .com route was established.
Why the score is 57/100
Reproducible public formulas and named operator, but no complete public round capture or verified deployed-contract audit; wallet claims need reconciliation with AML controls.
Open the ten-criterion scorecard · 57/100
| Criterion | Points | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Operator identity | 10/15 | Named company in public policies; no corporate registry match added. |
| Licence and regulatory evidence | 5/15 | Displayed licence only; independent scope and current status unresolved. |
| Withdrawals and KYC | 8/15 | AML controls described, but wallet presentation leaves release conditions unclear. |
| Payments and routing | 8/12 | SOL-specific flow; no verified contract permissions or complete fee schedule. |
| Complaints and redress | 4/10 | Public help exists; no independently corroborated dispute-resolution sample. |
| Domain and security | 6/8 | Exact domain and wallet distinction documented; deployment audit not matched. |
| Game integrity | 7/8 | Separate published game formulas and explicit Crash RTP. |
| Terms and enforcement | 4/7 | Custody descriptions and account controls are not fully reconciled. |
| Player protection | 2/5 | Age and territory exclusions disclosed; control effectiveness not established. |
| Support | 3/5 | Public help route available; response speed unmeasured. |
The six diagnostic axes in the checker normalize the corresponding identity, licence, payments, withdrawal, complaints and security points to 100. Editorial diagrams are not counted as documentary screenshots. Read the full scoring method.
Source trail and scope
Prepared by Crypto Casino Checker Editorial Desk. This case uses the linked public documents and clearly labelled calculations. Dates inside a source refer to that document; the page date records this editorial review.
- Crash calculation and verifiersolpump.io · consulted 22 Sep 2026
- Crash RTP, wallet flow and reward eligibilitysolpump.io · consulted 22 Sep 2026
- Coinflip calculationsolpump.io · consulted 22 Sep 2026
- Product, custody and audit claimssolpump.io · consulted 22 Sep 2026
- December 2025 account and withdrawal controlssolpump.io · consulted 22 Sep 2026
- Bitsler Crash Pro: optimal RTP and featureswww.bitsler.com · consulted 22 Sep 2026