Why count fields instead of giving a score?

Because a score hides where it came from. A filled-in field can be checked against the operator's document, with a clause and a date read; a score of 8.7 cannot. Counting also leaves the missing parts visible, and those are precisely the information a reader runs into on the day of a withdrawal.

Does an empty field mean the operator has no such limit?

It does not. An empty field means the document we read does not carry the figure. A withdrawal ceiling that is not written down can exist in practice and be applied at the moment the request is made. Treating empty as zero, or as an absence of limits, is the mistake this site avoids by rule.

Why are the paid partner's fields blank?

Because Vave's terms do not open for automated reading, and filling those fields with figures from third-party reviews would be inventing them. It appears first because it is paid placement, and the fields stay blank for want of a document read, not out of courtesy.

How many of the ten sites publish the verification amount?

Three: Bitcasino.io gives €2,500 in clause 6.6, Rocketpot gives $2,500 in clause 11.4 and Empire.io gives 2,000 USDT in clause 5.4. The other seven describe verification as their own decision, with no amount — which means it can happen at any sum.

the Fora do bet.br deskwe read ordinances, licence registers and operators' terms

Updated 3 September 2026

Counting, not summarising

An inventory of the gaps: a hundred contracts, field by field

We read the documents published by 100 brands and counted filled-in fields instead of summarising promises. A licence number appears in 68 of them, a barred-country list in 38, a list of coins in 30, a withdrawal ceiling in 14, and the amount that triggers identity verification in 5. What is left over are gaps — and a gap is not a zero.

Counting is more honest than summarising

A summary of terms turns into advertising within two sentences. A count does not: it shows what the document contains, and shows the size of the hole when it does not.

That is how this base was built. Every field came from the document published by the operator or from the register that issued the licence, with the date read noted. Where there was no text, it stayed empty.

Ten sites that sit outside bet.br. The fields come from the licence each operator claims and from the terms it publishes, not from opinion. An empty field means “not published” — never “zero” and never “no limit”.

Vavepaid partner

Licence claimed: Curaçao Gaming Authority
Company holding it: Latcas B.V.
Countries the site itself bars: list unread
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Bitcasino.io

Licence claimed: Curaçao Gaming Authority
Company holding it: Moon Technologies B.V.
Countries the site itself bars: 1
Amount that triggers the documents: 2,500 EUR

Rocketpot

Licence claimed: Curacao
Company holding it: Danneskjold Ventures B.V.
Countries the site itself bars: 34
Amount that triggers the documents: US$2,500

DuckDice

Licence claimed: Anjouan Gaming Board
Company holding it: Zentari Limitada
Countries the site itself bars: 16
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Empire.io

Licence claimed: Anjouan Gaming Board
Company holding it: Pixel Entertainment Limited
Countries the site itself bars: 12
Amount that triggers the documents: 2,000 USDT

Metaspins

Licence claimed: Curaçao Gaming Authority
Company holding it: 3-102-959384 SRL
Countries the site itself bars: 58
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Rainbet

Licence claimed: Anjouan Gaming Board
Company holding it: RBGAMING N.V.
Countries the site itself bars: 11
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Shuffle

Licence claimed: Curaçao Gaming Authority
Company holding it: Natural Nine B.V.
Countries the site itself bars: 15
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Wild.io

Licence claimed: Curaçao Gaming Authority
Company holding it: Stack Gaming Ltd.
Countries the site itself bars: 45
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Wolf.bet

Licence claimed: Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros
Company holding it: Cipher Games Ltd
Countries the site itself bars: 48
Amount that triggers the documents: at the site's discretion

Paid placement. Vave is our commercial partner and the link on this row is paid for. Vave's terms do not open for automated reading, so its cells stay blank rather than take figures from third parties.

Five fields, a hundred brands

The result of reading 100 brands, field by field:

licence number: 68. A declared number exists, almost always from Curaçao or Anjouan.
barred-country list: 38. The clause was found and read in full.
list of coins accepted: 30. The rest do not carry the list in their terms.
withdrawal ceiling: 14. An amount with a period, and almost always with a clause.
amount that triggers verification: 5. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io at €2,500, Sportsbet.io at the same figure, Rocketpot at $2,500 and Empire.io at 2,000 USDT.

Five in a hundred is the number that says most about this market. The question that decides whether a withdrawal leaves today or in two weeks is the least answered of them all.

Empty is not zero

A blank field in our table means one thing: the document we read did not carry the figure.

It does not mean the limit does not exist. A ceiling that is not written down can be applied the instant the request is made, and with no clause there is nothing to appeal to. Nor does it mean the operator does not ask for documents: it means the operator did not say at what amount.

Confusing empty with zero has been, in the network of sites we work on, the most expensive source of error ever corrected. An invented number looks like data and survives across several pages before anyone opens the contract.

What this page's table shows

Across the ten brands compared, all ten declare a licence number, under ten distinct corporate names. Nine had their country clause read in full; the tenth is the paid partner, whose terms do not open.

Three publish the verification amount, with a clause: €2,500 in Bitcasino.io's 6.6, $2,500 in Rocketpot's 11.4 and 2,000 USDT in Empire.io's 5.4. Three publish a withdrawal ceiling, also with a clause, and the three amounts are compared separately.

Eight publish the list of coins accepted. Nine were read live; one, Empire.io, came from an archived copy, and the record says so.

The paid partner is the most visible example

Vave occupies first place because it is paid placement. Its terms do not open for automated reading, which is why its fields stay blank.

Filling them with figures from other people's reviews would turn hearsay into data. The rule holds even against the site's own commercial interest, and the method explains why.

Why the gap is structural, not carelessness

On the authorised side, the information exists because someone is obliged to lodge it somewhere: the authorisation, the trademarks covered, the domain entered in SIGAP. The obligations come attached to the domain.

Outside, no such lodging exists. The contract is the only document, and it is written by the party that also interprets it. When a clause is missing from it there is no second source to consult: that is what the absence of the Brazilian list changes.

What we do not do with a gap

We do not fill it with an estimate, a market average or a plausible number. We do not convert currency to make the field look tidy, because a ceiling in USDT is not a ceiling in reais.

And we do not treat an access-refusal page as proof of anything about Brazil or about the reader. When an address stops opening, what that means has a page of its own.

Questions

Why count fields instead of giving a score?
Because a score hides where it came from. A filled-in field can be checked against the operator's document, with a clause and a date read; a score of 8.7 cannot. Counting also leaves the missing parts visible, and those are precisely the information a reader runs into on the day of a withdrawal.
Does an empty field mean the operator has no such limit?
It does not. An empty field means the document we read does not carry the figure. A withdrawal ceiling that is not written down can exist in practice and be applied at the moment the request is made. Treating empty as zero, or as an absence of limits, is the mistake this site avoids by rule.
Why are the paid partner's fields blank?
Because Vave's terms do not open for automated reading, and filling those fields with figures from third-party reviews would be inventing them. It appears first because it is paid placement, and the fields stay blank for want of a document read, not out of courtesy.
How many of the ten sites publish the verification amount?
Three: Bitcasino.io gives €2,500 in clause 6.6, Rocketpot gives $2,500 in clause 11.4 and Empire.io gives 2,000 USDT in clause 5.4. The other seven describe verification as their own decision, with no amount — which means it can happen at any sum.