Vave- Operating company
- TechOptions Group B.V.
- Licence
- Curaçao no number
- Withdrawal cap
- from 50.000 USDT in instalments art. 8.8
- Documents from
- case by case
The licence register of the Kansspelautoriteit, and what it does not say
The Kansspelautoriteit publishes who is allowed to offer online gambling in the Netherlands. That list is public, searchable and free. What is in it is useful; what is not in it needs explaining, and that explanation is missing from almost every comparison site.
What the operators put on paper themselves: the name they trade under, the licence they cite, the cap that applies to a withdrawal and the amount above which they ask for documents. Behind every figure stands the clause it comes from. An empty field means the operator publishes nothing about it or that we could not read it — it is not a zero and not an ‘unlimited’. None of the ten appears in the licence register of the Kansspelautoriteit, the Dutch gambling regulator.
Bitcasino.io- Operating company
- Moon Technologies B.V.
- Licence
- Curaçao Gaming Authority
- Withdrawal cap
- 1.000.000 USDT per week art. 6.10
- Documents from
- 2.500 EUR
Empire.io- Operating company
- Pixel Entertainment Limited
- Licence
- Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- 2.000 USDT
Bitsler- Operating company
- Oyine N.V.
- Licence
- Curaçao Gaming Authority
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- not published
Cloudbet- Operating company
- Halcyon Super Holdings B.V.
- Licence
- Curaçao Gaming Authority
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- not published
CoinCasino- Operating company
- Igloo Ventures SRL
- Licence
- Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
- Withdrawal cap
- 500.000 EUR per month art. 9.6
- Documents from
- not published
Rakebit- Operating company
- Nile King Media Ltd
- Licence
- Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- not published
Primedice- Operating company
- Antillephone
- Licence
- Government of Curaçao
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- not published
Stake- Operating company
- Medium Rare N.V.
- Licence
- Curaçao Gaming Authority
- Withdrawal cap
- not published
- Documents from
- not published
BetPlays- Operating company
- not published
- Licence
- not published
- Withdrawal cap
- 5.000 EUR per week art. 6.11
- Documents from
- not published
The only document you can check yourself
Almost everything written about online casinos has to be taken on authority. Payout times, customer service, fairness of the games: either you believe the writer or you do not. There is exactly one exception, and that is the question of whether an operator holds a licence in the Netherlands. That you can check yourself, at the source, in less time than reading this paragraph takes.
The Kansspelautoriteit, the Dutch gambling regulator, keeps a public register of licence holders for remote gambling. It is on the regulator's site, it is searchable, and it requires no account. Anyone who types in the name of an operator or the domain of a website gets either an entry or nothing. Both answers are information.
This site has run that search for the ten operators in the overview. None of the ten appears in the register. That is the reason this site exists: not to report that outcome, but to explain what does apply instead.
What an entry proves
An entry in the register is not a review. It says nothing about the quality of the game selection, nothing about the friendliness of the helpdesk and nothing about the speed of a payout. It says something far narrower and far harder: this operator has permission from the Dutch regulator to offer its service here, and is thereby bound to the conditions attached to that permission.
That binding is the whole point. A licence holder has obligations that are not negotiable and that are not in its own general terms and conditions, but in the Dutch rules. It must abide by advertising restrictions. It must be connected to the exclusion register. It must give substance to a duty of care towards players who play too much or too often. And it is under the supervision of a body that can act in the Netherlands.
If an operator disappears from the register, that says something too. The register is a snapshot and not a historical archive: it shows the situation now. That is why the date on which you look is part of the answer, and why this site records for each operator when the looking was done.
What the register does not do
This is where most texts on this subject go wrong, in two directions at once.
The first mistake is reading the register as a blacklist. It is not. The register contains the operators that hold a licence; every other operator in the world is not in it, whether they are a perfectly decent business with a licence elsewhere or no business at all. Being absent is therefore not a judgement about the operator. It is the statement that it falls outside this system, and therefore outside everything this system arranges for players.
The second mistake is the reverse: acting as though it does not matter. That is just as wrong. Falling outside the system means that the obligations from that system do not apply and that the regulator enforcing them has no say over it. What comes in its place is the licence of another jurisdiction — if there is one — and the operator's own general terms and conditions. Both are substantially less favourable for the player, and how much less depends on which licence it is.
For the ten operators here it is a matter of three kinds of paper: the new Curaçao licence with an OGL number, which four of them cite; the licence of the Anjouan Gaming Board with an ALSI number, which three of them cite; and one older Curaçao number, 8048/JAZ, at Primedice. Two operators — Vave and BetPlays — cite no licence at all in our data.
The number is the proof, not the seal
At the bottom of almost every casino website there is a seal: a logo, sometimes a clickable image, with the name of a regulator alongside. That seal is not proof. It is an image on a page the operator manages itself.
The proof is the number, and then only if that number can be found again in the register of the body that issued the licence. That is why an operator is only recorded as checked on this site when there is a number. Anyone who names a jurisdiction without a number stands here as unverified — not as licensed, and not as untrustworthy either. As unverified.
With four of the ten the number comes from a certificate of the Curaçao regulator: Bitcasino.io with OGL/2023/111/0069, Bitsler with OGL/2024/930/0387, Cloudbet with OGL/2024/328/0599 and Stake with OGL/2024/1451/0918, all four with the status active. With three it comes from the public register of the Anjouan Gaming Board: Empire.io with ALSI-132405042-FI3, CoinCasino with ALSI-142311005-FI2 and Rakebit with ALSI-202602030-FI2, all three recorded as valid.
At Primedice it lies differently, and that is a difference in kind of source worth naming. The number 8048/JAZ we found on the operator's own terms page, not in the register of an issuing body, and no status came with it. A number on the operator's own page is not the same as a number in the body's register. That is worked out further in without a licence number.
What you do with the outcome
Suppose you look for yourself and the name is not there. What then?
Then the question shifts. No longer: is this a good casino? But: which system applies here, and what can I get out of it when things go wrong? That is a sober question with a concrete answer, and it is set out in two steps on this site. Which law applies to the agreement and which court deals with it is set out under the applicable law. Where a complaint actually ends up is set out under where a dispute ends up.
What the answer is not: that the outcome of the register does not matter as long as the payouts keep coming through. Payouts that come through are a pleasant average. The register is about the exception, and the exception is precisely the moment at which you want to know where you stand.
