{"id":1237,"date":"2026-09-04T14:40:38","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T11:40:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kryptowalutowekasyno.com\/sieci-i-oplaty\/"},"modified":"2026-09-10T04:07:56","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T01:07:56","slug":"sieci-i-oplaty","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/kryptowalutowekasyno.com\/en\/sieci-i-oplaty\/","title":{"rendered":"The network fee on deposit and withdrawal: who pays it and why it is not in the agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

The second stretch of the money's route is the only one where the cost depends on a decision by the person depositing. The exchange sets its commission itself, the operator sets the rate itself, and the network fee is set at any given moment by the network \u2014 the one you choose when sending.<\/p>\n

In the library of a hundred brands there is not a single published rate for this fee. It is not there as a field either, because in the documents read there was no figure that could be copied out together with a clause number.<\/p>\n

The size of this fee depends on the coin, and the coins that are accepted were written out from the 30 lists read in accepted coins<\/a>. On the Polish side of the same route, however, stands an obstacle that a cryptocurrency does not meet at all: the card will not go through when the operator's domain is in the register<\/a>. The whole route of the money is described by the page crypto casino<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This does not mean that the cost does not exist. It means that no one wrote it down in a place that binds the parties.<\/p>\n

Why the terms are silent about the transaction fee<\/h2>\n

The network fee is not a price set by the operator. It is paid by the sender of the transfer to the network, and its size changes from hour to hour along with the load on the chain. Writing such a figure into an agreement would mean committing to something a party to the agreement has no influence over.<\/p>\n

Instead of a figure, the documents contain a reference to current conditions or to the cashier panel. How far this practice goes can be seen in the example of Nitrobetting, which wrote in its terms that there is no maximum withdrawal amount, and right afterwards that for security reasons a maximum has been set in the cashier.<\/p>\n

Figures live in the cashier, obligations in the agreement, and those two places are updated independently of each other.<\/p>\n

That is why the network fee is the only cost on the money's route that cannot be checked in advance in any operator's document \u2014 and at the same time the only one the player can influence.<\/p>\n

Which rail can be chosen at all<\/h2>\n

The choice of network is not unlimited: it begins and ends with the operator's coin list. The lists were read at 30 brands out of a hundred and it is they that determine which rails are available in practice.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin appears on 29 of the 30 lists, Ethereum on 28. Rails that are cheaper to use are rarer: TRON on 14 lists, Solana on 13, Litecoin on 23, Dogecoin on 18.<\/p>\n

At least one of the four rails usually cheaper than Ethereum \u2014 TRON, Solana, Litecoin or Dogecoin \u2014 is held by 26 of the 30 lists. Four lists have none of them \u2014 these are KatsuBet, Winz.io, Bitcoin.com Games and Bspin, that is four of the shortest lists in the whole set.<\/p>\n

The shorter the coin list, the less freedom in choosing the cost of a transfer. That is the second, rarely mentioned consequence of a short list \u2014 the first is simply the absence of your coin.<\/p>\n

The same USDT, two different transfers<\/h2>\n

USDT exists in several networks in parallel. The address, the confirmation time and the fee are different in each of them, and a transfer sent on the wrong network to an address from another network is a separate problem that none of the terms read describes.<\/p>\n

Among the 23 lists read that contain USDT, one marked this difference. Rocketpot lists two separate entries, distinguishing the version from the Ethereum network and the version from the TRON network. The other 22 lists give a single entry \u201eUSDT” and move the whole decision to the deposit panel.<\/p>\n

A similar divergence of wording is visible in the names: Cloudbet lists the TRON network under its full name, where other operators write the ticker TRX. We copy these entries exactly as they were published, without unifying them on the operator's behalf.<\/p>\n

The name of a coin on a cashier page is not yet the name of a network. They are checked separately, in the deposit panel, just before sending the funds.<\/p>\n

The fee comes back at the withdrawal, and it is not the same figure<\/h2>\n

A withdrawal is a second transfer on the network, so a second fee. This time, however, the choice of rail is sometimes on the operator's side, because it is the operator that sends the funds, and the list of coins for withdrawal need not match the list of coins for deposit.<\/p>\n

In the documents read there is no field describing who bears this second fee and at what rate. Nor is there \u2014 in any of the fourteen clauses on withdrawal caps \u2014 any information on whether the limit counts from the amount before the fee is deducted or after it.<\/p>\n

With a cap of 5,000 EUR per week the difference is small. With a limit of 4,000 EUR per day, used every day, it is multiplied by the number of orders \u2014 and the more orders, the more transfers, each with its own fee.<\/p>\n

Breaking a withdrawal into instalments therefore has a cost that is not visible in the table of limits. The limits themselves, their periods and the arithmetic of a large balance are described by the page withdrawal limits<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What can be checked from this before the first transfer<\/h2>\n