Skip to content
Seven Boxes

Written and checked by Hanne BruunRecords editor

Hungary

Two names in the seventy-four are printed less often than Hungary

Eight of the 37 readable territory schedules carry Hungary and twenty-nine do not, the third-lowest count anywhere on the seventy-four-name list.

Eight, twenty-nine, sixty-two

Hungary appears in the BitStarz territory list, one entry among seventy-four, taken from the terms page at bitstarz.com on 26 August 2026 while that page was open.

Of the hundred operators in the pool, thirty-seven publish a territory schedule that has been opened here. Eight of the thirty-seven print Hungary. Twenty-nine publish a schedule without it. Sixty-two schedules remain unread, and no reading of them is implied by anything below.

Eight is nearly the floor of this whole record. Put every one of the seventy-four names through the same count and only two come out lower, one at three documents and one at seven. Everything else on the list is printed nine times or more, and the middle of the range is thirteen. Hungary is not a borderline case in this data; it is close to the least-printed name there is.

Eight schedules, four permit numbers

The count of eight flatters the evidence, because the eight documents are not eight separate decisions.

Five of them, from Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Winz.io and Bitkingz, are published under one Anjouan permit, number ALSI-202508056-FI2, with Novatrix SRL named as the holder in each case. Two more, from 7Bit Casino and Mirax, carry the same Curacao number, OGL/2024/1307/0748. The eighth, Bitdreams, stands alone under 8048/JAZ2019–015 with Hollycorn N.V. named.

Four permit numbers, then, behind eight schedules. Where five documents share a permit and a holding company, a reader is looking at one drafting hand repeated, not five firms arriving at the same conclusion. The count is kept at eight because eight documents were opened, but the number should be read with that division in mind.

Seven questions were put to every operator, and the table records which ones its own documents answer: is a permit number printed, is the holding company named, does a register entry open, is a list of excluded countries published, does that list have an address, is a verification threshold stated, is a payout ceiling stated. BitStarz answers five of the seven. The count measures disclosure and nothing else — an operator that names one country rather than seventy-four is not more open, it has simply printed less, and its contract may still exclude what its list does not mention. An empty cell means the document was not read. It is not a zero, and it is not a permission.
CasinoOperatorLicenceCountries barredWithdrawal limitVisit
Vavepaid placementTechOptions Group B.V.Curaçao no numberlist not readfrom 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8Visit
BitStarzGareton B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority74not published
RocketpotDanneskjold Ventures B.V.Curacao34not published
Bitcasino.ioMoon Technologies B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority1not published
Wild FortuneMetlait SRLAnjouan Gaming Board47not published
Wild.ioStack Gaming Ltd.Curaçao Gaming Authority45not published
Instant CasinoIgloo Ventures SRLCuraçao Gaming Authority48not published
CoinCasinoIgloo Ventures SRLAnjouan Gaming Board36not published
Empire.ioPixel Entertainment LimitedAnjouan Gaming Board12not published
Winz.ioNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board92not published
DuckDiceZentari LimitadaAnjouan Gaming Board16not published
Playbet.ioBitx Operations N.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority30not published

One row in the table, and a clean gap in length

Among the twelve rows above, exactly one readable schedule carries the name. Winz.io lists ninety-two entries and Hungary is among them; five of the seven checks are answered, with an Anjouan permit number and Novatrix SRL as holder in print, and neither a verification threshold nor a payout ceiling stated anywhere.

Nine other rows have a schedule that has been opened, and none of the nine has the name in it. That includes Rocketpot, the fullest disclosure in the entire pool at seven checks out of seven, and it includes the sister documents of two operators that do print Hungary elsewhere.

There is also an odd gap in the lengths. The shortest schedule that names Hungary runs to ninety-two entries. The longest that omits it runs to seventy-four. Nothing between seventy-five and ninety-one exists in this set, so the split is total: on this name, every long document says one thing and every short document says the other, with no document sitting in the overlap to complicate it. That is a property of the sample rather than a rule of the trade, and one new schedule of eighty entries would end it.

The twenty-nine, and the sixty-two behind them

The schedules that omit Hungary are not one kind of document either. They run from a single line to seventy-four entries, they come from operators answering anywhere between two and seven of the checks, and twelve of the twenty-nine were read from stored copies rather than open pages. What they share is the absence of a word, which is the weakest kind of evidence a document offers, since a drafter can leave a name out for reasons that have nothing to do with the reader.

Behind both groups sit sixty-two operators whose schedules nobody here has opened. They are not a third column of permissive firms; they are unread. Any statement on this page describes thirty-seven documents out of a hundred, and the other sixty-two are a gap in the record rather than a finding in it.

What eight mentions are worth

Each is one sentence, and a narrow one: on the day the page was read, the name stood in that document. The schedule is a commercial term written by one party and revisable by that party at will, and five of these eight belong to the same party twice over.

Beyond the schedule sits the rest of the contract, with the verification and payment clauses drafted by the same hand, and beyond the contract sits Hungarian law, which no operator document interprets and which this site does not address anywhere. The gap between an entry in a company text and anything a reader wants settled is wide, and eight mentions do not narrow it.

Nearby

Romania gains two documents on this count, and both are short ones. Greece sits at the exact middle of the range that Hungary sits near the bottom of. Two places up the same ranking, Czechia and its twenty-seven absences add two printed documents to the eight counted here.

The seven questions, and what an empty cell is allowed to mean, are set out on the measure. Every row summarised above is opened up on the comparison.

Questions people actually type

Is Hungary named in the BitStarz terms?
Hungary is one of the seventy-four entries read live from bitstarz.com/terms on 26 August 2026. The entry says whom the operator states it will take as a customer. Hungarian law is a separate matter, decided by Hungarian institutions, and nothing here speaks to it.
How rare is that count of eight?
Only two of the seventy-four names are printed by fewer documents than Hungary: one appears in three schedules and one in seven. Every other name on the list is carried by nine schedules or more, and the median across the seventy-four is thirteen.
Are the eight documents independent of each other?
Not entirely. Five of the eight are published under the same Anjouan permit number, ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL, and two more share the Curacao number OGL/2024/1307/0748. Eight schedules resolve to four distinct permit numbers.
Which operator in the table names Hungary?
One of the ten table rows with a readable schedule: Winz.io, whose ninety-two entries include the name. It answers five of the seven disclosure checks, printing an Anjouan permit number and holder with no verification threshold and no payout ceiling stated.