Sending the wrong token format to a deposit address doesn’t always bounce cleanly. Sometimes it stalls. Sometimes it disappears entirely. What determines the outcome is whether the receiving system knows the structure the incoming asset carries, how it tracks ownership, how it moves between addresses, and how external contracts read its balance. A shared specification solves that problem by giving every participant a common language for interacting with that asset across different systems. Without one, every new integration requires building recognition logic from scratch each time.
Crypto online casino games accepting deposits across multiple chains deal with ten active token structures across major networks. Each one shapes detection, verification, and confirmation at the contract level differently, and gaps in standard support directly determine which assets clear successfully.
EVM-based standards
- ERC-20 – Ethereum’s original fungible specification. Transfer, approve, and allowance functions work identically across every compatible system, making this the most widely supported deposit format in active use today.
- ERC-721 – Unique asset specification where each token holds an individual ID rather than a divisible balance. Deposit systems read IDs rather than amounts during verification.
- ERC-1155 – Single contract handles both fungible and unique assets together. Batch transfers move multiple types in one transaction, cutting costs for mixed-format deposit operations.
- BEP-20 – BNB Smart Chain equivalent of ERC-20. Interface behaviour matches closely enough that compatible systems handle it with address-level adjustments rather than structural changes.
- ERC-777 – Adds hooks that fire receiving contract logic the moment a transfer arrives. No separate approval step needed before funds move through.
- ERC-4626 – Vault shares rather than underlying assets move through this specification. Conversion functions handle ratio calculation automatically on both sides of the deposit.
Non-EVM network standards
- SPL tokens – Solana attaches balances to individual mint accounts owned by programs rather than exposing them through contract functions. Reading those balances requires a completely different detection approach than any EVM-based format uses.
- TRC-20 – Tron runs its own infrastructure beneath an ERC-20-style interface. Low fees and fast throughput pushed USDT volumes on this network higher than many expect when looking at deposit channel data.
- ASA – Algorand forces receiving accounts to opt into each asset before any inbound transfer can land. A transfer hitting a non-opted account fails at the network level without exception.
Emerging vault standards
Vault-based deposits work differently from direct asset transfers. A holder sends underlying assets in, receives shares representing a claim on pooled reserves, and those shares move as the functional deposit unit. ERC-4626 standardised that entire interaction, giving every protocol building on top of it identical accounting functions rather than each one writing custom conversion logic. For systems accepting multiple vault types across different deployment addresses, that consistency cuts integration work considerably and removes accounting discrepancies that non-standard vault implementations regularly introduced before the specification existed.
Structure determines settlement. Assets following recognised specifications are clear without friction. Those arriving in formats outside a supported range stall, fail, or require manual intervention that defeats the efficiency blockchain deposits were built to provide.