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
Operators without a checkable licence number
With two of the ten operators our data holds no jurisdiction and no number, and with a third the number appears only on its own page. This page is about what you may and may not conclude from that — including about our own partner.
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 most uncomfortable field in the table
Of the ten operators in the overview, eight cite a licence with a number alongside it. That leaves two for which that field is empty: Vave and BetPlays. And there is a third case that sits in between: Primedice, with a number we found only on its own terms page and not in the register of an issuing body.
This is the place where a comparison site would normally smooth something over. An empty field looks bad, certainly in the top row, and it is tempting to put something neutral in it: "Curaçao", or "international", or simply a dash that looks like an answer. This site does not do that, and the reason is below.
Vave: not a single document read
Vave is this site's partner. The link to Vave is paid and marked as advertising. That first, because what follows is the reason this page exists.
Of Vave we were unable to read a single document. Not the terms, not a country list, not a licence page. In our data this operator has no operating company, no jurisdiction, no licence number, no withdrawal cap, no verification rule and no source reference. The field that normally says when and where something was retrieved stands at "not retrieved".
That means one thing and no more: we do not know. It does not mean that Vave holds no licence. It does not mean that Vave has no operating company. It means that the documents that would show it were not readable for us, and that we fill in nothing we have not seen.
The consequence is that the row of our own partner is the emptiest row in the table. That is not convenient for this site's income and it is the only way the rule is worth anything. A rule you reverse as soon as it hits the wrong party is not a rule. For the rest of this site it moreover has a pleasant side effect: if you see that the partner is not spared, you have to take rather less of the other nine rows on our authority.
And the same goes for acceptance. Whether Vave accepts players from the Netherlands we could not establish; in our data that question stands as unverified. Not as yes and not as no.
BetPlays: terms yes, licence no
At BetPlays it lies slightly differently, and that difference is instructive.
Of BetPlays we did read terms. There are concrete things in them: article 6.11 names a cap of five thousand euros per week on withdrawals, and article 4.3 describes the document check as an assessment at its own discretion. That is exactly the kind of fact this site has to work with, and it is demonstrably from one source: the operator's own terms of service.
What our data does not hold is an operating company, a jurisdiction and a licence number. So there is a contract with clauses, but there is no designated body to turn to if the operator does not honour those clauses, and no company name saying with whom you actually concluded that contract.
That is a fundamentally different situation from the one at Vave. At Vave the information is missing because we could read nothing. At BetPlays we could read, and it was not there.
Primedice: a number from the wrong source
The third case is the subtlest. Primedice cites the number 8048/JAZ under the designation Government of Curaçao, with Antillephone as the designation in the operating company field. No status comes with it, and the place we found the number is the operator's own terms page.
Four other operators in this overview — Bitcasino.io, Bitsler, Cloudbet and Stake — have a number for which we recorded the place of finding at the issuing regulator, in the form of a certificate anyone can find again in the same place. Three operators — Empire.io, CoinCasino and Rakebit — have a number from the public register of the Anjouan Gaming Board.
Primedice has neither. That does not make the number incorrect; we have no indication whatsoever that it would be incorrect, and we would say so if we had one. It only makes the number worth less as proof, because a number you can only check with the operator is one you effectively cannot check. On this site it is therefore recorded as it was found, with the source alongside.
Why "no number" is not a judgement
It would be easy to turn this page into an indictment. We do not do that, for a substantive reason.
A missing number is a lack of information, not a proven fact about the operator. There are innocent explanations: a page sitting behind a geographical filter, a website that leans heavily on scripts we do not execute, a document in a place we did not search. And there are less innocent explanations. This site cannot tell the two apart and therefore does not pretend to.
What the empty field does do is put the question back. Anyone who finds no number does not know which body supervises, does not know what complaints address there is and does not know which standard terms are attached to that licence — the point on which it comes down so sharply with the Anjouan licence, as can be read under the Anjouan licence. Knowing none of those three things is a position you would rather be in a little less than the opposite one.
For all ten, moreover, the starting point of this site still holds: none of them appears in the licence register of the Kansspelautoriteit, and the question of which law then applies to the agreement is only made harder to answer by a missing number. That question is worked out under the applicable law.
