Currency wording, read 2 September 2026
Six coins, thirteen units, and one clause doing the work of a payments page
No list of accepted coins has been read for BitStarz, so that cell is blank. What has been read is clause 3.10, which prices a single bet in thirteen units of account, six of them cryptocurrencies, and freezes an exchange rate into the contract while doing it.
The question sounds like it should have a list for an answer. For BitStarz this reading has no list, and the honest thing is to say so in the first line rather than the last.
What is on record about BitStarz and coins
A blank. No accepted-currency page has been opened for this operator, so the coins cell carries nothing, and it carries nothing in the way an empty cell always does on this site: it reports the state of the reading list and stops there.
For context, the same cell is blank for 70 of the hundred operators in the library. Thirty have a coin list on record, and the lengths are wildly uneven: Cloudbet at forty, Sportbet.one at nineteen, CryptoGames and Rakebit at fifteen, Rocketpot and Wolf.bet at thirteen, and at the other end KatsuBet and Bitcoin.com Games with one apiece.
That spread is the reason the seven questions never included a coin count. Forty coins and one coin are the same kind of statement made at different lengths, and neither is a commitment about anything.
The clause that names six coins without meaning to
The BitStarz bonus terms do something more useful than a payments page, and they do it by accident. Clause 3.10 caps a single bet at 5 EUR while a bonus is being wagered, and it prints the equivalent in every unit the operator supports: 5 USD, CAD, AUD, NZD or USDT, 50 kr, 500 yen, 0.01 BCH, 0.05 LTC, 0.0015 ETH, 25 DOGE, or 0.00006 BTC.
Thirteen units of account, of which six are cryptocurrencies: USDT, BCH, LTC, ETH, DOGE and BTC.
An operator does not set a maximum stake in a currency it holds no balances in. So the clause is indirect evidence of six coins, arriving from a numbered part of a contract instead of from a marketing page, which is the stronger of the two sources by the standard this site uses everywhere else.
It has an edge of vagueness worth printing. The clause writes 50 kr without saying which krone, and it writes 500 yen without a code. Both are readable in context and neither is stated, and a document that is precise to five decimal places on bitcoin is imprecise about the Nordic unit in the same sentence.
What the equivalents say about the day the clause was written
Divide each figure into the euro amount and the clause turns into a price list.
| unit | written as | implied per euro |
|---|---|---|
| BTC | 0.00006 | about 83,333 EUR |
| ETH | 0.0015 | about 3,333 EUR |
| BCH | 0.01 | about 500 EUR |
| LTC | 0.05 | about 100 EUR |
| DOGE | 25 | about 0.20 EUR |
| JPY | 500 | about 100 per euro |
Those are the rates that stood in front of whoever drafted the clause, and the document dates itself: Last updated: June 25th 2025. Nothing in it re-prices as markets move.
The consequence lands on the customer rather than the operator. A ceiling of 5 EUR and a ceiling of 0.00006 BTC are the same restriction only at 83,333 EUR a coin, and at any other price one of the two is looser. A player betting in bitcoin is therefore governed by a ceiling that drifts against the euro version of the identical clause, and neither figure updates on its own.
The same clause also treats 5 USD as 5 EUR. That is a rounding written into a contract, and it goes the customer's way or the operator's depending on the week.
Why no operator here names a network
The library has no chain recorded anywhere, for any of the hundred. Not the choice between an ERC-20 and a TRC-20 transfer of the same stablecoin, not a minimum confirmation count, not a fee borne by either side.
That absence is a reading gap and also, on the evidence available, a habit of these documents: contracts describe money in units of account, and networks live on payments pages where they can be changed quietly. A stablecoin sent on the wrong chain is one of the few ways to lose a deposit outright, and it is settled nowhere in any clause opened for this site.
So the cell stays empty, and empty here has never meant nothing to worry about.
What the thirty lists do and do not distinguish
The coin lists that were read carry one shape between them: a set of names, and nothing about what those names are for.
Not one of the thirty separates the currencies a deposit may arrive in from the currencies a withdrawal may leave in. Not one attaches a minimum, and not one attaches a maximum, which means a coin can appear in a list of forty while being unusable for the transaction a reader has in mind. Where a limit does exist in these contracts it lives in a different clause entirely, expressed in euros or dollars, and of the fourteen payout ceilings across the hundred, eight are written in euros, three in dollars, two in USDT, and the fourteenth is stated in two currencies at once.
So a coin list answers a narrower question than it appears to. It says the brand has some relationship with a currency, and it leaves both directions of that relationship unstated.
That is the reason a count of forty and a count of one sit in the same column here without a ranking between them. Cloudbet's forty and KatsuBet's one are both statements of the same kind, made at different lengths, and the shorter one has told the reader less rather than restricted them more.
What a reader can do with a blank this wide
Two things, both cheap. Open the operator's own cashier before depositing and read the coin and network together, since one without the other is not an address. Then open the terms and search them for the currency the deposit will be made in, because a clause that prices something in that unit — a bet ceiling, a payout ceiling, a verification threshold — is the only version of the answer that can be quoted back later.
The second habit is the entire method of this site, applied to one document instead of a hundred.
Where the seven questions stop and why coins were never one of them is set out on the rules of the count. The distribution across the hundred, with both totals printed so the arithmetic can be re-run, is on the hundred, counted, and the reader behind the file is described by the records editor.