Outside bet.br: what separates the authorised shopfront from everything else

The ten sites in the table are on the outside

None of them appears on the SPA/MF list, and none runs on .bet.br. Six declare a licence issued in Curaçao and four in Anjouan, each with a number and a holding company the operator publishes itself.

That is all the licence field asserts. It repeats what stands in the operator's document and in the register that issued it, where that register opens. What that field does not prove is set out separately, because the gap between holding a number and being on the Brazilian list is precisely the subject of this site.

On one side, a document with a price and a term

The Brazilian authorisation is expensive. The grant runs to R$30 million, lasts five years, and covers up to three commercial trademarks of the same company, which must have its seat and management in the country.

Whoever pays that takes on obligations recorded somewhere you can look them up: identifying the bettor, the payment method, the complaints channel. What comes attached to the domain is a closed list, and it exists on headed paper.

On the other side there is no equivalent. There is a contract the site wrote, published and can change, and there is the licence register of the jurisdiction that issued it.

On the other, the terms and nothing else

That is why we started counting filled-in fields instead of summarising promises. Across 100 brands read:

• 68 publish a licence number;
• 38 publish a list of countries they do not serve;
• 30 publish the list of coins accepted;
• 14 publish a withdrawal ceiling;
• 5 publish the amount above which documents are required.

The other fields are not zeroed — they are empty. An empty field means the document does not carry the figure, and the difference between not published and not existing changes what a reader can expect when a withdrawal sticks.

The address answers one question, not four

The suffix is a binary answer and cheap to check. It does not tell you the payment term, does not tell you the withdrawal ceiling, and does not tell you which document will be asked for.

Nor is it the brand that carries the authorisation: the company receives it, and one authorisation can cover up to three brands. Outside the Brazilian list the same thing happens on a different scale, with one licence number serving several shopfronts at once. Reading the address carefully separates those three layers before any deposit.

The second frontier, drawn by the site itself

There is an additional line, and it is not the Brazilian government's. Each operator keeps its own list of countries it does not serve inside the contract, and that list decides whether an account lives or dies at the moment of a withdrawal.

We read 38 of those lists. Four name Brazil: BitStarz, with 74 entries, Oshi Casino with 224, PlayAmo with 217 and Wild Fortune with 47. The other 34 do not. None of those four is in the table on this page, and what such a list means gets a whole page, because an empty field there also means “we did not read it”.

What this comparison does not do

It does not deal with getting around a block, a filter or a verification — neither by advising it nor by describing it. Nor does it assert that playing at an unauthorised site is permitted: the legal frame sits on a single page, rather than spread through the rest.

And there is no account here of testing with our own money. We read published documents, note the date and the clause, and say where we stopped.