Sixty-eight numbers, seventy entries that open, and what status means

Sixty-eight of the hundred operators print a permit number, 52 name the company holding it, and a register entry opens for 70. More entries resolve than operators name a counterparty, which means the register regularly supplies the fact the operator withheld. Five of the entries came back Revoked.

Three of the seven boxes on this site are about identity: whether a permit number is printed, whether the company holding it is named, and whether an entry for that permit opens in a register. They fill at 68, 52 and 70 out of a hundred, and the gaps between those three numbers are where the interesting part lives.

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.
Casino	Operator	Licence	Countries barred	Withdrawal limit	Visit
Vavepaid placement	Latcas B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	list not read	from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8	Visit
BitStarz	Gareton B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Rocketpot	Danneskjold Ventures B.V.	Curacao	34	not published
Bitcasino.io	Moon Technologies B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	1	not published
Wild Fortune	Metlait SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	47	not published
Wild.io	Nonce Gaming B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	45	not published
Instant Casino	Axenora Strategic Services N.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	48	not published
CoinCasino	Igloo Ventures SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	36	not published
Empire.io	Pixel Entertainment Limited	Anjouan Gaming Board	12	not published
Winz.io	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	92	not published
DuckDice	Zentari Limitada	Anjouan Gaming Board	16	not published
Playbet.io	Bitx Operations N.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	30	not published

Three counts that do not line up

Sixty-eight operators print a permit number somewhere on their own pages. Fifty-two name the company that holds it. An entry opened for 70.

Read those in order and the middle figure is the odd one. Two thirds of the market will show a reader a number; barely half will say which legal entity stands behind it. A number without a counterparty is a reference to a permission with no statement about who a customer is actually contracting with, and it is the commonest shape of disclosure in this trade.

Then the third figure exceeds the first. Seventy entries opened against 68 printed numbers, because a register can be searched by domain without the operator's cooperation. For the difference, the issuing body supplied the counterparty the operator had not.

That is the whole argument for reading registers rather than footers, and it is worth stating in one line.

The strongest fact about a company is the one it did not publish about itself.

A drawing of a mole clerk pressing a stamp down onto a sheet of paper — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. A stamp is the right picture for the narrowest of the four sources, because a register settles one narrow thing: that a permit number produced a response on the morning it was typed in. That is what gets filed, morning included, together with whatever status the portal showed.

Sixty-eight numbers, fifty-three references

The 68 printed numbers reduce to 53 distinct references.

Nine references carry 24 brands between them, because a permission is issued to a company and one company can run several shopfronts. Nothing about that is irregular, and this site treats it as ordinary. What it does mean is that the identity column measures fewer separate permissions than it appears to, and any shortlist assembled from it can quietly contain one counterparty several times over.

The tally on this site prints operators rather than permissions, and prints this paragraph beside it, rather than discounting shared rows. Discounting would need a rule for what a shared holder is worth, and two brands under one company can run genuinely different products.

Five entries that came back revoked

Five of the entries that opened returned the status Revoked, and they are printed as read rather than quietly dropped, because a withdrawn permission is precisely what a reader checking paperwork wants to find.

Three of the five sit on a single shared reference, so the five brands reduce to three separate permissions being withdrawn. Two of the three had been operating on the strength of a number they were still printing.

A revoked entry is also the clearest illustration of what a register box is doing. Nothing on the operator's own pages changes when a permission lapses. The footer keeps its number, the terms keep their clause, and the only place the change appears is the register — which is the source the operator does not control.

What the entry against this brand says

The certificate for bitstarz.com states that the domain is operated by Gareton B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao with company number 160656, licensed by the Curaçao Gaming Authority to offer games of chance under licence number OGL/2024/165/0185, in accordance with the National Ordinance on Games of Chance. It gives the grant date as 8 July 2024 and the current status as Active.

Three of the seven boxes therefore fill for this brand: a number is printed, the holder is named, and the entry opens. The two that stay empty are the money questions, and they are the reason this site exists rather than a footnote to it — set out at the five figures in a hundred.

What a status on one date is worth

Less than the word suggests, and more than nothing.

It is dated. An entry read on one morning describes that morning. Permissions are granted, transferred, renewed and withdrawn without any announcement a customer would see, and nothing in a register warns of a change before it happens.

It is about a company, not a brand. Where the company behind a shopfront changes, the permission the shopfront trades under changes with it, and the site itself may look identical throughout.

It is about permission, not conduct. An issuing body saying a company holds a licence is not saying the company pays promptly, prints its ceilings, or answers complaints. Those are separate questions, answered by the operator's own clauses, and the answers are far scarcer than the permits.

And in Curaçao's case the source itself needs choosing. Two official sources exist and they do not agree; this site reads the certificate portal, because it is the only Curaçao source indexed by domain and therefore the only one a reader can check against a specific brand rather than against a name that may or may not be the one on the shopfront.

Visit

Where the box fits

Identity is cheap to publish and widely published. Commitments about money are rare: 5 operators in a hundred state a verification figure and 14 state a payout ceiling, against 68 printing a permit number.

That asymmetry is the shape of the whole tally, and any comparison that treats a licence badge as the headline is measuring the abundant thing. What each of the seven questions asks, what a pair of them share between them, and four soft spots in the arithmetic are at the seven boxes. What the identity column does and does not do for a reader in a particular country is worked out on the country pages, starting with the longest published exclusion.

Questions people actually type

What licence does BitStarz hold?

The Curaçao certificate portal returns permit OGL/2024/165/0185 against bitstarz.com, held by Gareton B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao with company number 160656. The certificate states the licence was granted on 8 July 2024 under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance, and gives the current status as Active.

Why do more register entries open than operators print numbers?

Because a register can be searched without the operator's help. Sixty-eight of the hundred print a number and 52 name the company holding it, while an entry opened for 70. For the difference, the issuing body supplied a counterparty the operator had not published — which is the strongest argument for reading the register rather than the footer.

Do any of these entries come back revoked?

Five. They are printed as read rather than dropped, because a withdrawn permission is exactly the finding a reader came for. Three of the five sit on one shared reference, which is why the five brands reduce to three separate permissions.

How much does an Active status prove?

That the issuing body described the permission that way on the day the entry was read. It does not describe the day a deposit is made, it says nothing about how fast the holder pays or what it will demand before paying, and it does not survive a change of company behind the brand. It is a dated statement by a third party, and the value is in the third party rather than in the word.