Cara NevinEditor, board mechanics and operator documents, since 2026

Two of ten name an amount. Seven name none, which is also a fact

One clause, read ten times

The identity clause is where a balance either leaves the account or stops. Two operators here attach an amount to it with a clause number: 2,500 EUR at Bitcasino.io in clause 6.6 and 2,500 USD at Rocketpot in clause 11.4. Seven publish a clause containing no figure at all, which means a request can arrive at any size. One was not read.

Ten operators whose records carry a house-games category, with the fields their own documents and licence registers actually publish. Every figure here is about the account, not about the board: nothing in this data says which games any of them carries, and no cell has been filled in to suggest otherwise. Every empty cell on this table is a list nobody read, and it is never a zero: a blank under coins does not mean an operator takes none, and a blank under countries barred does not mean it bars none.
Operator	Licence	Coins listed	Studios listed	Amount before ID check	Countries barred	Go
Vaveour partner	Curaçao Gaming Authority · OGL/2024/1676/0905 · Active	6	Casino and sportsbook on one balance	Case by case, clause 8.7	Open to this site’s readers	Visit
Vave is the partner of this site, and the one operator here you can look up in a register in under a minute: licence OGL/2024/1676/0905, held by Latcas B.V., issued 19 May 2025 and active. Six coins at the cashier — BTC, ETH, USDT, LTC, DOGE and TON — and a 150% welcome bonus up to 1.5 BTC with 100 free spins across the first four deposits. The link is advertising, and Vave takes no part in the counts on this site.
Wild.io	Curaçao Gaming Authority	12	80	no amount published	45
Bitcasino.io	Curaçao Gaming Authority	not read	120	2,500 EUR	1
Rocketpot	Curacao	13	not read	US$2,500	34
Rainbet	Anjouan Gaming Board	9	33	no amount published	11
Wolf.bet	Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros	13	32	no amount published	48
DuckDice	Anjouan Gaming Board	10	19	no amount published	16
Flush	Anjouan Gaming Board	9	85	not read	list not read
Bitsler	Curaçao Gaming Authority	not read	41	no amount published	1
BitStarz	Curaçao Gaming Authority	not read	62	no amount published	74

The clause that decides more than the paytable

Everything on the game side of this site can be computed: the paths, the slot probabilities, the shape of the distribution. None of it decides whether money leaves the account. One paragraph in the operator's terms does that, and it is written in one of three ways.

It names an amount. It names no amount and reserves the right to ask at any time. Or nobody has read it.

Those are three different cells in the table on the home page, and merging any two of them would be the single most misleading thing this site could do.

The two published figures

Bitcasino.io, clause 6.6. The terms give the operator the right to request verification at any time, including at first deposit and before processing a withdrawal, and name withdrawals exceeding 2,500 EUR or the cryptocurrency equivalent as liable to additional checks. The same clause notes that smaller withdrawals may also be checked where the gaming licence requires it.

Rocketpot, clause 11.4. The terms name 2,500 USD, and separately 0.05 BTC, as amounts above which verification may be required, with additional checks possible above 2,000 USD. The same clause gives 30 calendar days to supply requested identity or source-of-funds documents.

Two figures, both around the same point, both with a clause number a reader can open at source. Across the hundred operator records behind this network, 5 publish a threshold of any kind, which puts these two among a small minority.

The seven that publish no amount

This is where most of the set sits, and the cell is easy to misread as an absence of information. It is not one.

Vave, clause 8.7, states that documents may be requested before any payout, at the operator's discretion. Bitsler, clause 4.3, notes that basic registration requires only an email, then reserves the right to request proof of age or identity at any time and to suspend the account until satisfactory documents arrive. DuckDice, section 2, reserves the same right in order to determine identity, location and source of funds. Wolf.bet, in its KYC and AML section, states that verification is required before payouts are processed and that its FAQ mentions large withdrawals without naming a figure. Rainbet, clauses 5.2 and 8.3, describes verification at account creation and at certain transactions, including photo ID, address confirmation, a selfie or a verification call. Wild.io states that documents may be requested at any time and that the account may be subject to security checks before the first withdrawal. BitStarz establishes verification as an obligatory procedure covering identity, payment and address, with further documents at its sole discretion.

A drawing of the meerkat tallykeeper holding up one small blank card — Bitcasino.io names 2,500 EUR in clause 6.6 and Rocketpot 2,500 USD in clause 11.4, and both clauses add that smaller withdrawals may be checked as well. Seven operators publish a clause naming no amount at all. Flush’s clause was not read, and that cell says not read rather than nothing.

Seven operators, one shape of clause. No amount is named in any of them, and there is no size of withdrawal at which they promise not to ask.

The one that was not read

Flush publishes a licence number, a nine-coin list and a studio list of 85 names, and its verification clause was not read. Its cell says not read, and the difference between that and not published is the difference between a gap in our work and a fact about the operator.

Getting that distinction wrong is not hypothetical. A confident number in a column, copied from one comparison page to the next, loses its origin after two hops, and by the third nobody can point to a clause that ever contained it. The rule that prevents it here is on the methodology page.

Why the two figures look alike

Two of the five thresholds in the wider set are 2,500 in different currencies, and both of the ones on this site are. It is worth resisting the reading that two independent compliance departments arrived at the same number: threshold language of this kind travels between documents, and terms drafted for operators under the same licensing regime often share both the figure and the clause position.

The practical upshot is unglamorous. A table showing several operators with published thresholds may be showing fewer independent decisions than it appears to, and a threshold is in any case not a promise not to ask below it — both of the clauses above say explicitly that smaller withdrawals may be checked as well.

What the clause does not depend on

Not on the game. Nothing in any of these ten documents makes the identity requirement depend on which part of the lobby a balance came from, so a board built in-house and a board licensed from a studio sit under the same paragraph — the difference between those two origins is on the page about who builds the board.

Not on the round-verification scheme either. Six of the ten offer one, and it covers a single round and nothing about the account, which is set out on the provably fair page.

What does sit alongside it is the withdrawal ceiling — three operators publish one, and they are two hundred times apart, on the withdrawal limits page — and the exclusion list, on the countries page. Those three clauses together decide the exit, and none of them is visible from the game screen described on the page about the mechanism.

Questions people type about the board

How much can be withdrawn before documents are requested?

Only two of the ten operators here publish a figure. Bitcasino.io's clause 6.6 names withdrawals above 2,500 EUR or the equivalent in cryptocurrency as subject to additional checks. Rocketpot's clause 11.4 names 2,500 USD. Across the hundred operator records behind this network, 5 publish a threshold at all.

Does an empty cell mean no checks?

The opposite, and this is the most expensive misreading in the subject. Seven of the ten publish a clause reserving the right to request documents at any time and at any amount. A blank against a figure means no figure was published, which leaves every amount available to the operator's discretion.

Is a low or absent threshold a reason to avoid an operator?

This site does not rank operators on it, and the two published figures come from documents that resemble each other closely. What the clause is good for is knowing in advance which document decides, and reading it before there is a balance rather than after.

Does playing a house-built game change the identity clause?

No. The clause is written about the account and the withdrawal, not about which part of the lobby a balance came from. Nothing in any of the ten documents read here makes the identity requirement depend on the game.