What cannot be checked before depositing: a map of seven fields

Before the money sets off, a player would like to know a few figures: how much may be withdrawn, at what amount the question about a document will come, who stands behind the brand and since when it has been operating. This page answers a different question — how much of that is written down anywhere at all.

The answer comes out worse than the look of a typical comparison site suggests. Across one hundred brands none of the seven basic fields is filled in for all of them, and the most important of them, the withdrawal cap, has fourteen entries.

The best filled of these seven fields is the software list: 33 lists read are in game providers. How these fields line up in the order the money actually travels is shown by the knowledge base. The whole route is described by the page crypto casinos.

Seven fields and how many times they could be filled in

Field	Brands out of one hundred	Where it comes from
Licence number	68	the page footer and the authority's register
Clause on identity verification	49	terms or AML policy
List of excluded countries	38	terms
List of game providers	33	the operator's game index
List of accepted coins	30	the cashier page
Withdrawal cap	14	terms, with a clause number
Year of founding	11	the operator's „about us” page

The order in this table is the reverse of what a player is looking for. Best documented is the licence number, which says nothing about a withdrawal; worst documented — the withdrawal cap and the date of founding, the two things other people's rankings put in first place.

Eleven brands give the year of founding: Cloudbet and Nitrobetting state 2013, FortuneJack 2014, Bitsler and Oshi Casino 2015, CoinPoker, Rocketpot, Bspin and Sportbet.one 2018, Wild.io 2022, Rakebit 2024. For the remaining 89 there is no date and there will be none, because it is not in the source.

How many documents could be opened at all

The readability of the sources falls into three groups. The documents of 38 brands were read live, 41 only from an archived copy of the same pages, and 21 did not open at all.

Separately stand 22 brands that were completely unavailable on the day of reading. About them this site contains not a single judgemental sentence, because there is nothing to quote.

An archived copy is not a worse source, only an older one. A quotation from it describes the state of the document on the day the copy was made, not on the day someone reads it — and a quotation read live should be treated in exactly the same way, because terms change without warning.

In which document the provision about documents lives

The forty-nine verification clauses that were read come from five different kinds of page, and that in itself is information.

• 36 provisions stand in the terms — the document that binds the parties.
• 3 stand in a separate KYC/AML policy, at its own address.
• 2 in a responsible gaming policy.
• 5 on the home page or in a questions and answers section.
• 3 have no recorded source address.

The fifth group is the most interesting. These are brands that put the sentence about verification — most often about its absence — on their landing page: LTC Casino, Mega Dice and Sportbet.one. In the case of LTC Casino the terms that were read do not mention identity verification at all, so the only sentence on the subject stands outside the agreement.

The promise lives in the headline, the obligation in the agreement, and a dispute is settled by the agreement.

One figure we deliberately did not count

At one brand, Rakebit, the captured text of the terms contained a sentence about a maximum amount of 10,000 euros within twenty-four hours, but that value was not confirmed for the table of caps. That is why the whole site speaks of fourteen published limits and not of fifteen.

This is not caution for show. A figure that has passed only one stage of checking looks exactly the same in the table as a confirmed figure — and that is precisely why it cannot go into it.

Everything that was missing is recorded in the same way. Nitrobetting states in its terms that there is no maximum withdrawal amount, and in the same place adds that a maximum has been set in the cashier. Such a pair of sentences does not give a figure, so the brand does not appear among the fourteen.

What the library does not have at all

Three things cannot be given today for any of the hundred brands, because they were not found in any document.

There is no deposit fee and no spread at which the operator converts a coin into a balance. There is no network fee rate — that depends on the network and the moment, not on the operator, and it is described by the page networks and fees. There is no deadline within which the operator undertakes to process a withdrawal or to review documents; deadlines exist only on the player's side and they are collected on the page deadlines for documents.

An empty field is never a brand's advantage here. It means exactly that the document was not read or that the figure was not in it — and it does not thereby turn into „no limit” or „no verification”.

What you can check for yourself in a quarter of an hour

• The licence number in the register of the authority that issued it, together with the company name and the status — the method is described by the page operator licences.
• The withdrawals section in the terms: whether it contains a figure and for what period — fourteen such cases are collated on the page withdrawal limits.
• The verification section: whether it contains an amount or only a right to demand a document — a breakdown of 49 clauses is on the page identity verification.
• The cashier page: whether your coin is on the list and on which network — 30 lists read are collated on the page accepted coins.

The date the whole library was read: 26 August 2026. The licence registers were checked on the same day, and one entry, concerning the Vave brand, was reviewed again on 2 September 2026.