11 March 2026 changed the everyday mechanics of Belarusian iGaming. For licensed operators, the date meant more complex payment handling, player identity checks, transaction records and regulatory procedures.
The financial outcome may differ from one company to another, but the operational effect moved in the same direction across the regulated segment. The customer journey gained more checks and restrictions, while operators had to perform more mandatory procedures. Some users may have moved from foreign platforms to Belarusian ones, but open data cannot measure that shift or compare it with the additional friction and cost.
We reviewed official explanations, bank communications and traffic across eight domains included in one industry dataset. Website traffic is used only as one indicator of adaptation. It does not show how many payments were rejected, how deposit conversion changed or what happened to GGR and profit.
What became more complicated on 11 March
The main provisions of Decree No. 226 entered into force on that date. The most visible change for users concerns payments to foreign gambling organisers. Banks must reject such transactions.
Licensed Belarusian platforms also became subject to stricter requirements:
- one gaming account per virtual gambling venue, with duplicate accounts blocked;
- enhanced identity verification through a video session or a visit to a land-based facility;
- deposits only from a card, account or electronic wallet owned by the player;
- withdrawals and refunds to the player's own payment instruments;
- more detailed reporting of gaming accounts and transactions through the Special Computer Cash System, or SKKS;
- video recordings stored for at least 60 days;
- a dedicated account and a mandatory testing protocol by 1 July 2027.
These changes do not mean that all licensed operators ended up in the same financial position. They do mean that every operator had to adjust payment logic, onboarding, data controls and internal processes.
Payments became the main source of friction
The new rules are most visible when a user deposits or withdraws funds. A player can no longer use another person's card or account. The payment instrument must belong to the gaming account holder, and its details must pass both bank and operator checks.
This adds several potential points of failure:
- the cardholder does not match the gaming account owner;
- the bank does not support a particular payment method;
- the payment requires additional confirmation;
- the player or identity document needs to be checked again;
- a refund cannot be processed through the previously expected route.
Operators do not publish comparable statistics on rejected transactions, so this is not a rejection-rate estimate. It is the direct consequence of additional mandatory checks. The route to a successful deposit becomes longer for the user. For the operator, conversion may decline while support workload and manual handling of disputed payments may increase.
Betera provides one public example. Its payment information page states that a card must belong to the account holder and be issued by a Belarusian bank. Availability of individual methods can also depend on bank settings.
Bank restrictions also affected local platforms
The legal date for the main provisions was 11 March, but banks implemented their own mechanisms separately. Belarusbank announced restrictions on some transactions to foreign gambling organisers from 2 February.
From 15 June, the bank extended existing daily limits to payments and transfers to Belarusian organisations classified under MCC 7995:
- BYN 600 for Velvet Club cards;
- BYN 3,000 for other debit cards.
Customers can remove the limits through the procedure set by the bank. Their introduction nevertheless reveals an important countervailing process. Payments to foreign organisers are restricted, while a specific bank's anti-fraud mechanisms can add extra steps for customers of licensed Belarusian platforms as well.
The reform therefore cannot be described as a simple transfer of foreign demand to local companies. Operators potentially face less foreign payment competition, but they also operate with a more complex domestic payment journey.
The additional burden goes beyond payments
The new requirements affect the entire operating model. Operators need to validate identity documents, control duplicate accounts, store more video data and provide more detailed information to SKKS.
From 1 January, the withholding tax on player winnings increased from 4% to 5%, while the tax rate for virtual gambling venues rose from 10% to 12%.
A virtual gambling venue must also keep a minimum balance in a dedicated account:
- BYN 4.05 million for the full format;
- BYN 0.9 million for a limited online betting format.
Some of these requirements create fixed costs or tie up capital. The same rule may therefore affect operators differently. A large platform can spread expenses across a wider customer base, while infrastructure and control can consume a more material share of a smaller operator's resources. No public reporting allows us to compare the actual compliance cost of the eight companies.
Did operators receive an offsetting benefit?
Potentially, yes. Restricting payments to foreign organisers is intended to keep more demand within the regulated market. The Ministry of Taxes and Duties explicitly cited lower outflows of funds as one objective of the reform.
However, several steps separate potential demand from a new customer: registration, verification, a successful payment and later activity. If a user encounters extra checks or a bank rejection, restricting foreign platforms does not automatically result in a deposit with a Belarusian operator.
Another factor appeared in January. Google began allowing online gambling advertising in Belarus for operators authorised by the Ministry of Taxes and Duties. Operators were also preparing for the FIFA World Cup during the spring. Traffic changes may therefore reflect regulation, advertising campaigns and the sports calendar at the same time.
Since June 2025, Belarus has allowed a mechanism for placing bets and paying winnings with the involvement of crypto platforms and crypto exchanges that are residents of the High-Tech Park. Settlement between the Belarusian operator and the crypto service takes place in Belarusian rubles. We found no public evidence that this mechanism had become a mass solution across all eight tracked brands by summer 2026.
What website traffic shows
April was the first full month under the new rules. According to a published Similarweb-based report, total visits across the eight tracked domains fell by 9.1% from the reconstructed March estimate.
- March: an estimated 16.62 million visits.
- April: 15.11 million.
- May: 16.98 million.
- June: 20.60 million.
The April decline coincided with the first full month of the new rules. It is consistent with transitional payment and registration friction, but the available data does not prove causation.
Growth in May and June does not prove that the negative operational effect disappeared. The World Cup began in June, operators increased marketing activity, and website visits do not reveal successful payment rates or acquisition costs.
An operator can increase website traffic while also experiencing lower deposit conversion, more checks and higher operating costs. Internal data would be required to separate these processes.
How the eight brands appear to be adapting
The eight domains were selected because they are included in one consistent industry Similarweb dataset. This is an analytical panel, not an exhaustive export from the current Unified Register of Licences.
Winline
Estimated traffic increased from 1.16 million visits in March to 5.56 million in June. The operator significantly increased visits to its website, but open data does not show payment conversion quality or financial performance.
Betera
The estimate fell from 6.58 million visits in March to 5.29 million in June. The domain remains one of the largest in the dataset. Public payment terms confirm the requirement to use the player's own card and the dependence of individual payment methods on bank settings.
Maxline
Estimated traffic was 4.03 million visits in March, fell to 3.45 million in April and rose to 4.98 million in June. The effect of additional checks on successful deposits is unknown.
Fonbet
The estimate was 4.39 million visits in March, declined to 3.24 million in May and reached 4.47 million in June. The return occurred during the first month of the World Cup, so product adaptation cannot be separated from sports demand.
Marathonbet
Traffic remained in the range of approximately 0.14 to 0.16 million visits from March to May. A decline was reported in June, but no separate precise value was published. A smaller web footprint may make the operator more sensitive to fixed compliance costs, although no financial data is available.
Betcity
Estimated traffic declined from approximately 0.16 million visits in March to 0.13 million in May. A separate June value was not published. These figures do not support conclusions about the business or payment conversion.
Grand Casino / GG.by
The estimate was approximately 0.11 million visits in March, 0.18 million in April and 0.02 million in June. The trajectory is unstable, while measuring one domain does not account for apps or other potential entry points.
Brazino777
Estimated traffic was approximately 0.05 million visits in March and 0.01 million in May and June. This is the smallest measured base in the dataset, making percentage changes highly sensitive to a few thousand visits.
We see no basis for calling any operator a winner specifically because of 11 March. Larger brands may have been able to offset the new friction more actively through marketing, product and existing infrastructure. Smaller platforms may have felt fixed requirements more strongly. This is an assessment of adaptation capacity, not a ranking of financial health.
What changed in the end
The new rules created a negative operational effect across the regulated segment:
- the payment journey became more complex;
- registration and identity checks require more steps;
- data control and storage obligations increased;
- tax and compliance burdens grew;
- bank anti-fraud limits can also affect payments to local operators.
The potential positive effect is the restriction of payments to foreign platforms. Open sources do not yet show whether any resulting shift in demand offset the additional friction and cost for each operator.
The key question after 11 March is therefore not who grew, but who is coping better with a more complex customer journey. Website traffic provides only part of the answer. A full assessment requires data on successful deposits, payment rejections, registration conversion, active players, GGR and compliance costs.
August and September should provide a cleaner view after the World Cup. Even then, website traffic will need to be considered alongside payment and product indicators, not in place of them.
Traffic figures are external Similarweb estimates published by industry media. Visits are not unique players, deposits, GGR, revenue or profit.
This article is informational and analytical. 21+.
