Bitcoin Cash Casino Comparison UK: Licensing and Risks

UK rules distinguish licensed gambling from sites accepting direct BCH deposits, with implications for safeguards, payments and accountability.

Bitcoin Cash Casinos in the UK: The Licensing Divide

A Bitcoin Cash casino that accepts customers in Britain is not necessarily a UK-licensed casino. The distinction is regulatory, not a matter of where a website is hosted or where its servers sit. The UK Gambling Commission regulates remote gambling offered to consumers in Great Britain even when the key equipment is located elsewhere. It is the sole regulator for commercial gambling there, issuing operating licences to businesses and personal licences to individuals working in the sector.

The Commission’s public register of remote casino operators does not show Bitcoin Cash as an accepted deposit method. UK-licensed operators cannot take cryptocurrency, so a site offering direct BCH deposits to British players is operating outside the Commission’s licensing system. A polished website or a familiar casino-style layout does not change that status.

I have seen payment methods treated as a feature on the front page, while the licence is pushed into small print. That reverses the order that matters. A UKGC licence determines whether the operator is accountable under the British framework; accepting BCH says only that the site supports that payment method.

Casinos That Accept Solana in the UK: What’s Verified

Offshore gambling by an individual is not itself a criminal offence in the UK. But using an offshore BCH casino does not bring the UKGC regulatory safety net with it. Players cannot use the UKGC complaints route or an approved alternative dispute resolution service, and the casino will not be integrated with GAMSTOP. Those are practical differences, not technical footnotes.

This comparison therefore turns on a divide that payment speed or coin choice cannot bridge: a casino may be accessible from the UK without being licensed to serve the British market. For a UK-licensed operator, the Commission’s register provides a way to verify its status before depositing. For a BCH-accepting offshore site, the absence of that licence means British regulatory protections do not apply.

Available online. Different legal footing.

Best casino sites in the UK

1. BeOnBet
   Bonus: 100% up to €500 + 100 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
2. EvoSpin
   Bonus: 125% up to €2500 + 125 Free Spins · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
3. Britsino
   Bonus: Welcome Package – Get your £2,200 + 2,000 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
4. Revery Play
   Bonus: 100% up to€1,000+ 100 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
5. SlotoSport
   Bonus: 500% up to £ 10 200+ 777 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
6. Zombillion
   Bonus: Welcome Pack 250% up to £4000 + 200 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days

What “Bitcoin Cash Casinos” Actually Offer UK Players

The phrase “Bitcoin Cash casino” describes a payment option, not a distinct kind of gambling licence or a consistent account model. In the offshore market, BCH is generally one route for moving funds between a player’s wallet and a casino account. The site may also offer other payment methods, but accepting Bitcoin Cash does not establish how the operator is licensed, what checks it applies, or what rules govern a customer’s account.

Cardano ADA Casino Comparison for the UK in 2026

The common arrangement is wallet-based. A player holds BCH in a personal wallet, while the casino provides a way to credit the account after a payment is recognised. That is different from paying by card through a familiar UK banking flow: the casino account and the cryptocurrency wallet are separate, and the operator’s own payment process determines how the account balance is shown and handled. The broad category can make these sites sound alike. In practice, their terms and procedures are set by individual operators.

Account registration can also look lighter than the process at a traditional UK-licensed casino. A specialist review of offshore BCH sites reports that many permit registration using an email address and password, without the conventional identity checks at the point of sign-up. That describes a reported offshore practice; it is not a UK Gambling Commission standard, and it is not a promise that any particular casino will accept an account on those terms.

There is an important distinction between a short sign-up form and a complete account policy. A low-friction registration flow tells little on its own about what information an operator may later request, how it handles account access, or what conditions apply to payments. The market pattern is minimal checks, not proof that checks never occur. I have seen marketing reduce this point to “no verification”, as if it were a settled feature rather than an operator’s current process. The wording does more work than the evidence.

For someone in Britain, the word “UK” in a casino description may simply indicate that the site is accessible to people here or that it accepts a payment method they use. It does not mean the casino is UK-licensed. The Commission’s public remote-casino register does not list a licensed operator that accepts BCH, and UK-licensed operators cannot accept cryptocurrency. So a BCH option points towards an offshore service rather than a new payment feature at a UK-regulated casino.

Attention: A Bitcoin Cash option points towards an offshore service rather than a new payment feature at a UK-regulated casino, as UK-licensed operators cannot accept cryptocurrency.

That distinction matters even when the front end looks familiar. A casino can have a polished account page, display a balance in cryptocurrency, and allow deposits without the checks a UK customer expects from a licensed operator. Those details describe the product experience, not a UKGC approval. Nor does an email-and-password account remove the operator’s own terms: access can still depend on its rules, and those rules may be different from the protections attached to a UK-licensed account.

The commercial appeal is easy to understand. Wallet payments let an operator serve customers who prefer cryptocurrency, while a short registration process reduces friction before play. From the operator’s side, fewer steps can help a customer reach the games quickly. From the player’s side, the same simplicity can make it harder to see what is being traded away in exchange for speed. A smooth sign-up is not a measure of oversight.

This is where “best” becomes an unreliable label. A site may be described as a leading BCH casino because it accepts the currency and offers a quick registration route. Those are features, not evidence that the operator is safer, more accountable, or suitable for UK customers. The visible payment method answers one narrow question: whether the site says it accepts BCH. It does not answer who regulates the gambling activity or what recourse exists if a dispute arises.

BNB Casino Comparison for UK Players: Licensing

In my experience, the useful first distinction is not between one wallet-enabled casino and another. It is between the service being offered and the protections a UK-licensed operator must provide. Offshore BCH sites may be accessible to British players, and their account flows may involve fewer traditional checks. Neither fact turns them into UK casinos in the regulatory sense. The label can mislead. The operating model is the point.

Online BCH Casinos and the Safeguards They Leave Behind

A Bitcoin Cash casino can be reachable from the UK without being inside the UK’s gambling framework. That distinction is easy to lose in a smooth sign-up flow: the site loads, an account opens, and the cashier accepts a payment. None of those steps establishes access to the protections attached to a UK Gambling Commission licence.

The practical difference appears when something goes wrong. A UKGC-licensed operator must provide an internal complaints process and access to an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution service. An offshore BCH casino is outside that system. A complaint can still be sent to the operator, but there is no UKGC complaints route to take it further and no approved ADR service available through the Commission’s framework.

That is not a technicality. Disputes about account restrictions, withheld funds or the application of terms depend on the process available to challenge the operator’s decision. With a UK-licensed site, the regulator’s rules set a framework for complaints and escalation. At an offshore site, the terms and the operator’s own process carry more weight. Different leverage.

Regulatory Risk

Using an offshore BCH casino means you lack the UKGC regulatory safety net, including access to approved alternative dispute resolution services and GAMSTOP integration.

GAMSTOP is another clear dividing line. A site accepting Bitcoin Cash without a Commission licence is not part of GAMSTOP. Someone who has registered with the UK self-exclusion scheme should not assume that an offshore casino will recognise that exclusion or block access. A familiar logo or a responsible-gambling page does not create integration.

The protections at licensed casinos extend beyond complaints. UKGC licensees must offer self-exclusion and account-level tools, and operators must verify a customer’s age before allowing a deposit. Licensed operators also have to prompt new customers to set a financial limit before their first deposit. Those obligations form part of the operating framework; they are not simply features a casino can mention in promotional copy.

An offshore site may display limits, time-outs or self-exclusion options of its own. Their presence does not make the site UK-regulated, and it does not provide the same route to enforcement. I learned to separate the button from the safeguard: a control on a screen matters only as much as the rules and remedies behind it.

There is an important legal distinction here. The UK does not criminalise individuals for gambling at an offshore casino. That does not mean an offshore operator is authorised to offer gambling to people in Great Britain, or that the site is covered by UKGC standards. For the player, the key point is not a threat of prosecution; it is the absence of the UKGC regulatory safety net.

TRON (TRX) Casinos in the UK: Licensing and Payments

That absence can be overlooked when a Bitcoin Cash online casino presents itself as an ordinary alternative to a UK site. The word “online” describes access, not oversight. A site might offer slots or live tables, but the format of the games does not bring UK complaints handling, approved ADR or GAMSTOP into the picture. Nor does paying with BCH change the regulatory position.

There is also a limit to what a responsible-gambling statement can prove. A promise to consider complaints or let users close an account is not equivalent to a UKGC licence. The Commission regulates remote gambling offered to consumers in Great Britain, while offshore BCH casinos operate outside that system. The customer may be able to contact the operator, but cannot rely on the Commission’s dispute-resolution arrangements or the UK self-exclusion scheme.

The distinction is worth keeping plain: offshore play by an individual is not criminalised, but it comes without UKGC dispute resolution, approved ADR access or GAMSTOP integration. A functioning cashier is not a safeguard.

How to Assess a BCH Casino Without Relying on “Best” Claims

A “best” label is a conclusion, not evidence. For a Bitcoin Cash casino serving people in the UK, the first useful comparison is not about the size of a welcome offer or the number of games. It is about what the operator’s licence does—and does not—authorise.

The UK Gambling Commission’s public register is the starting point for checking whether an operator is licensed to serve Great Britain. No operator listed there currently identifies Bitcoin Cash as a deposit method, and UK-licensed operators cannot accept cryptocurrency. A site that takes BCH from UK players is therefore outside the UKGC licensing system. It should not be described as a UK-licensed casino merely because it displays a licence from somewhere else.

Do

• Check the UK Gambling Commission’s public register for licensure
• Identify the specific named regulator and entity covered
• Treat reviews as leads to be verified independently

Don’t

• Rely on “best” or “trusted” labels as evidence of safety
• Assume an offshore licence provides UKGC regulatory status
• Mistake payment availability for regulatory approval

That distinction matters more than the word “legit”. An offshore licence may be a genuine licence in another jurisdiction; it does not give the operator UKGC status. Nor does a polished website, a payment page showing BCH, or a review calling a casino “trusted” change the position. The label is doing less work than it appears to.

Separate the claims

I would split an operator’s claims into three questions:

• Who issued the licence? Identify the named regulator and the entity the licence covers. If the site gives only a badge or a general reference to licensing, that is not the same as establishing who is licensed.
• What does the licence mean for UK play? An offshore authorisation is not permission from the UKGC to offer remote gambling to Great Britain consumers. The UKGC register is the relevant check for that status.
• What does the evidence actually show? A page saying that BCH is accepted supports a claim about payment availability. It does not prove that the casino is regulated in the UK, or that it is the best choice.

I have seen the same word—“licensed”—used as if it settled all three questions. It does not.

Read reviews as snapshots

A specialist review may describe the casinos in its comparison as operating under a Curacao or similar offshore licence. That is a statement about the sites covered at the time the review was prepared, not a permanent description of the whole BCH casino market. Operators can change, and a review’s list is not a regulator’s register.

The useful approach is to treat a review as a lead, then check the operator’s own licensing statement and compare the named entity with the relevant regulator’s information. If the details do not line up, the review cannot resolve the discrepancy. And if a review calls one site “best”, that ranking may reflect its own criteria; the word alone says nothing about how the site would perform for a particular player.

This is where comparison pages often blur evidence and judgement. A list can establish that certain sites were included by its publisher. It cannot, without clear and comparable evidence, establish that they are safer, fairer or more suitable than every alternative. A ranking is not a licence check.

Casinos That Accept Giropay in the UK: How to Check

Judge the limits, not just the headline

Offshore BCH casinos commonly use wallet-based deposits and may ask for fewer identity details at account creation than a UK-licensed operator. That describes a reported offshore practice, not a UKGC standard or a promise about any individual site. Minimal checks at sign-up do not establish what information may be requested later, or what will happen if an account or payment is reviewed.

The same caution applies to payment claims. Seeing BCH listed as a deposit option establishes only that the site says it accepts BCH. It does not establish UK regulation, the quality of the operator’s complaint handling, or a reliable outcome if a dispute arises.

An offshore casino does not provide the UKGC regulatory safety net. Players using one cannot access the UKGC complaints route or approved alternative dispute resolution, and the site is not integrated with GamStop. Offshore gambling by individuals is not criminalised in the UK; that does not make an offshore operator UK-regulated.

Licensing Evidence

No defensible casino ranking can be based on payment availability alone; only a UKGC licence provides British regulatory protections.

So a defensible comparison can describe what a site claims, identify the licensing jurisdiction it names, and distinguish that from UKGC authorisation. It cannot turn those details into a verified “best” BCH casino ranking. The limit is the evidence.

Which Casino Sites Accept Bitcoin Cash—and What That Means

The short answer depends on what “UK casino” means. No casino licensed by the UK Gambling Commission currently accepts Bitcoin Cash as a direct payment method. UK-licensed operators are prohibited from accepting cryptocurrency, so a site that advertises BCH deposits to people in Britain is not offering that payment option under a UKGC licence.

That distinction is easy to lose in a list of online casinos accepting Bitcoin Cash. A payment logo, a BCH cashier option or a page describing crypto deposits tells me what the operator says it accepts. It does not establish that the operator is licensed to serve customers in Great Britain. Payment availability and regulatory status are separate checks.

Some offshore casino sites are accessible to people in the UK and advertise Bitcoin Cash. “Available” describes access, not approval. Remote gambling operators selling into the British market are required to hold a Gambling Commission licence, regardless of where the operator or its equipment is based. An offshore site accepting BCH is outside the Commission’s licensing system; the cryptocurrency does not create an exception.

This matters when a casino presents itself as a UK option because it accepts sterling, displays British-facing material or allows registration from the country. None of those features changes the licence position. Nor does accepting a cryptocurrency make an operator a crypto specialist in any regulatory sense. It is a payment method, not a licence category.

A specialist review has described the casinos in its own selection as operating under Curacao or similar offshore licences. That statement applies to the selection covered by that review, not to every site that may accept BCH, and it can become outdated as operators change. The licence claim needs to be treated as an operator-specific fact, not a market-wide guarantee.

Online casinos that accept SMS deposits: UK guide

I have seen payment availability used as a shortcut in promotional copy: if a site accepts Bitcoin Cash, the implication is that it is a suitable casino for a British player. That implication does not follow. The meaningful question is not simply whether a cashier lists BCH, but whether the operator holds the licence required to offer gambling to consumers in Great Britain. Those are different facts.

The distinction also applies to a “Bitcoin Cash slot machine” or a casino page organised around particular games. A game label says nothing by itself about the operator’s status. In this market, the licence belongs to the gambling business; a cryptocurrency payment option or a game catalogue does not supply one.

So the phrase “casino sites accepting Bitcoin Cash” describes a payment feature, not a vetted set of UK-licensed casinos. Where a site accepts BCH but does not hold a UKGC licence, it operates outside the Commission’s system. That is the essential qualification behind any claim of availability. No shortcut.

BCH Deposits, Slot Play and Withdrawal Queues

A BCH deposit has two separate stages: the transaction is sent from a wallet, then the casino credits the account under its own payment rules. A specialist review reported that the casinos it examined generally waited for one on-chain confirmation, which took around 10 minutes. That is a reported practice, not a fixed settlement promise: confirmation time and the operator’s crediting process are different things.

Bitcoin Cash transactions are generally faster and cheaper than Bitcoin transactions. The network’s block-size limit is 32MB, which supports greater transaction capacity. That can make BCH practical for funding an account, but it does not control how quickly a casino processes a deposit or releases a withdrawal. The blockchain handles the transfer; the operator handles the account.

That distinction matters when moving from deposit to play. Once funds are credited, they may appear in the casino balance for slots or other games. A later cashout is not simply the reverse of the deposit: the operator may apply internal checks or queue a request before sending BCH. A fast network transfer cannot remove that stage.

Casinos that accept Monzo in the UK: payment options

A specialist review reported that BC.Game and Stake had processed BCH cashouts within 10 minutes of a request, often in under five. Those timings describe the review’s observations, not a dependable service standard. A casino can change its process, and the time shown in a review does not establish what will happen to every request. “Fast payout” describes only part of the route.

The less visible delay can be a management queue. A specialist review reported that several casinos routed withdrawals above a set threshold for “management review”; the thresholds it encountered ranged from 0.5 BCH to the equivalent of 2 BCH. This is an operator-side hold, not a blockchain confirmation delay. The threshold and review process are not uniform, so a payout that is quick in one case may take longer when it triggers that step.

I treat the advertised withdrawal speed and the actual cashout path as separate claims. The first may describe the time between a request and approval; the second also depends on whether the request enters a queue and when the operator broadcasts the transaction. The network cannot settle a transaction that has not yet been sent.

Casinos that accept Zimpler in the UK: what to check

For anyone comparing BCH casino payouts, the useful detail is not just a headline time. It is whether the stated timing begins at request or at approval, and whether management review can intervene. Deposit confirmation, account crediting, internal approval and the blockchain transfer are distinct stages. Shorter network times help only at the last of them.

BCH Gambling Sites, Traceability and the Limits of Anonymity

Bitcoin Cash can make a payment feel separate from a bank transfer, but it does not make the transaction invisible. Every BCH transaction is recorded on a public blockchain. The payment trail can be examined, and chain-analysis firms can often connect a casino deposit to a known exchange.

That distinction matters. A casino account may ask for little information at sign-up, while the payment itself leaves a public record. A specialist review reports that most offshore BCH casinos permit account creation with only an email address and password, without traditional KYC checks. That is a description of reported practice, not a promise that any particular operator will ask for nothing. A casino may request identity documents later, including when reviewing an account or withdrawal.

While some offshore BCH casinos permit registration with only an email and password, operators may still request identity documents during account or withdrawal reviews.

“Anonymous” is the word that tends to do too much work in crypto marketing. In practice, the chain records movements between addresses; it does not automatically display a player’s name. But if an address can be linked to an identity—for instance, through activity involving a known exchange—the trail may become attributable. The gap between “no name shown on the blockchain” and “untraceable” is substantial.

I have seen payment language blur that gap. A wallet-based deposit can avoid putting card details into a casino cashier, but it does not erase the transaction record or prevent analysis of its route. The method changes; the ledger remains.

Nor does reduced identity checking at registration mean that a casino is unable to identify an account holder. Operators can apply their own checks, and the details of those checks vary. A quick sign-up is not evidence of lasting anonymity.

There is a separate UK consequence. Offshore BCH casinos are outside the UKGC system, so their players do not have access to the UKGC complaints route or approved alternative dispute resolution, and these sites are not integrated with GamStop. That does not make offshore gambling by an individual a crime in the UK; it does mean there is no UKGC regulatory safety net if a dispute arises.

For payment privacy, the useful distinction is not between “crypto” and “traceable”. It is between information held by the casino, information recorded publicly on the blockchain, and what can be connected across the two. Those are different records, and none should be mistaken for guaranteed anonymity.

Pay by Phone Casinos UK: How Phone Billing Works

Comparing BCH Casino Sites Without an Unsupported Top List

A “top” label suggests that one Bitcoin Cash casino has been tested against others on consistent terms. That requires comparable evidence: the operator’s licence, payment rules and the conditions attached to an account. A polished ranking can look decisive while relying on claims that are difficult to verify across offshore sites. I have learned to separate a confident label from a meaningful comparison.

For UK players, the first distinction is regulatory. A casino taking BCH without a UK Gambling Commission licence sits outside the Commission’s system; accepting the coin does not make it UK-regulated. Offshore licensing descriptions also need care. A specialist review may report that the casinos it covers operate under a Curaçao or similar offshore licence. That describes the sites in that review, not every BCH casino or a permanent market-wide fact.

Payment practice offers another point of comparison, but not a quality score. Offshore BCH casinos may use wallet-based deposits and limited identity checks. Those arrangements describe how a site handles access and payments; they do not establish that withdrawals will be honoured, that terms are fair, or that the operator will resolve a dispute well. Convenience is not assurance.

The same caution applies to lists of leading BCH casino sites for UK players. Without a consistent basis for checking operators, ranking names would turn uncertain claims into recommendations. A licence label alone cannot fill that gap, and a cryptocurrency option says nothing by itself about the reliability of the business behind it.

Main Conclusions

• UKGC-licensed casinos are prohibited from accepting Bitcoin Cash
• Offshore BCH sites lack integration with GAMSTOP and UK dispute resolution
• “Anonymous” crypto payments still leave a public record on the blockchain
• Wallet-based deposits and fast network transfers do not bypass operator-side management queues

I would therefore treat comparisons as narrow statements, not verdicts: what kind of licence a source attributes to a named operator, whether it accepts BCH, and what its published terms say. Those details should be checked against the operator’s own current information, while keeping the offshore status clear. No defensible top list follows from payment availability alone. A list needs evidence.

Bitcoin Cash Blackjack: What Can Be Verified

Blackjack played at a casino that accepts Bitcoin Cash is a specific combination of game and payment method. The two are separate things: a casino’s acceptance of BCH does not establish which blackjack tables it offers, who supplies them, or what rules apply.

The regulatory boundary is clearer. A casino licensed by the UK Gambling Commission cannot take Bitcoin Cash as a direct payment, so a site offering both BCH payments and blackjack to people in Britain is not operating under a UKGC licence. That distinction matters more than a table label. A familiar game name does not mean the casino is part of the British licensing system.

I have seen payment badges do a lot of work in casino marketing. They say how an account may be funded; they do not verify the game catalogue. Likewise, a blackjack listing does not tell anyone whether the table is live or automated, which rules govern it, or whether a particular provider is involved. Those details need to be established for the individual casino and game, not inferred from the presence of BCH.

That leaves a narrow but useful way to read claims about Bitcoin Cash blackjack: treat the payment method and the blackjack offer as separate claims. A casino may advertise both, but one does not prove the other. Nor does a table’s availability establish that the site has a UKGC licence.

The distinction is easy to miss because casino pages place payment icons beside game tiles. On the page, they look like one package. In practice, each claim needs its own evidence. A badge is not a licence. A title is not verification.

Casinos That Accept Klarna in the UK: What to Check

BCH Casino Bonuses: Read the Wagering Terms Before the Headline

A Bitcoin Cash casino bonus can look generous because the headline focuses on the match, not the work attached to it. A specialist review of offshore BCH offers describes welcome deals as deposit matches of 100% to 200%, with wagering requirements of 20x to 50x the bonus amount. These are reported market examples, not a standard every operator follows or a promise that a particular offer remains available.

The key is what the multiplier applies to. If it is calculated on the bonus rather than the combined deposit and bonus, the wagering figure has a different meaning; the offer’s terms need to state the basis. I have seen headline value do its job before the terms do theirs. Read the calculation, not the banner.

No-deposit deals appear less often at BCH casinos than at traditional UK sites, according to a specialist review of these offers. Where one is available, the same review reports high wagering requirements and a low maximum cashout. That cap can limit what is withdrawable even after the wagering condition is met. “Free” is the headline. The exit terms matter more.

The regulatory comparison is different. Since 19 December 2025, the UK Gambling Commission has capped wagering requirements on bonuses at 10x for licensed operators. That rule applies within the UK licensing system; offshore BCH offers are not made compliant with it simply because they are promoted to UK players. A large match and a much higher multiplier belong to a different regulatory setting.

For a UK reader comparing a Bitcoin Cash casino bonus, the useful figures are the match, the amount used to calculate wagering, the required multiple and any cashout ceiling. If the terms do not make those clear, the headline cannot establish the offer’s practical value. No headline tells the whole story.

Does any Gambling Commission-licensed casino currently accept Bitcoin Cash deposits?

No. UK-licensed casinos do not accept cryptocurrency, and no operator on the Commission’s public remote-casino register lists Bitcoin Cash as a deposit method.

Can I legally deposit Bitcoin Cash at UK casinos?

Yes, offshore gambling by an individual is not a criminal offence in the UK. However, a casino taking BCH is outside the UK Gambling Commission’s licensing system, so UK regulatory protections do not apply.

Is a casino accepting Bitcoin Cash automatically unlicensed for British players?

Yes, if it offers direct BCH deposits to British players, it is operating outside the UK Gambling Commission’s licensing system. UK-licensed operators cannot accept cryptocurrency.

Can I legally gamble with Bitcoin Cash in the UK?

Yes, offshore gambling by an individual is not criminalised in the UK. But a BCH casino outside the UK Gambling Commission’s licensing system does not provide UKGC protections.

Do I need to verify my identity to play at a BCH casino?

Not necessarily at sign-up: many offshore BCH casinos reportedly allow registration with just an email address and password. That does not mean checks will never be requested; each operator sets its own account and payment rules.

How does funding an account with Bitcoin Cash differ from a standard UK bank transfer?

With BCH, you send funds from a personal cryptocurrency wallet, and the casino credits the account once it recognises the payment. The wallet and casino account are separate, unlike a familiar UK banking payment flow.

Responsible Gambling

Prepared by the Vaultline editorial staff.