Last updated:
Company, certificate, domain
The logo you deposit under, the company in the terms and the name on the certificate are three separate things. Usually they line up. On six casinos from this list, they do not quite.
The casino licence holder is the company a register names against a certificate. The brand is what you see on the site. The company in the terms is the one you actually contract with, and it is the one whose clauses decide when you are asked for papers, which ones, and how long you have. On most sites these are the same business under different labels. When they drift apart, a reader looking for a casino without verification has one more question to answer before depositing: who, exactly, would be holding your passport scan.
This page takes the six casinos on the list where a name, a number or a domain does not line up, and explains what each mismatch does and does not change. None of these cases says a casino will check you sooner or later than another. They say how easy it is to connect the clause that governs the check to a company you can find on the public record. All six still carry the points shown on the Bitcoin casino no verification page, where the licence is one of five criteria read from the terms.
Every ranked casino with terms on file keeps a way to ask who you are. At that point three things become concrete. Your documents go to a company, the deadline you face is written in that company's terms, and what happens if you miss it (a frozen balance, a cancelled withdrawal, a closed account) is also that company's rule.
If the holder on the certificate, the company in the terms and the domain in your browser all match, you know whose rules apply and whom to write to. If they do not, you need to settle it before the request arrives, not after. Nothing about that requires distrust; it is ordinary paperwork, the same care you would take before sending an ID copy to any business.
The licence register itself, and how to search it by domain, is covered on the licence lookup page. This page stays with the gap between names.
| Casino | Licence | What the register search found |
|---|---|---|
| 9Jack.comcalled Jackbit until 29 May 2026 | Curaçao: active in the register | Holder Data Link Digital B.V.; certificate OGL/2024/1562/1139 dated 23 July 2025, domain jack.com. A separate certificate covers jackbit.com. |
| 10Wild.io | Curaçao: two company names | On the certificate: Nonce Gaming B.V. In the terms: Stack Gaming Ltd. Both names stay, and this page does not choose between them. |
4 Metaspins | Anjouan in the terms, Curaçao in the register | Its terms (1.1) point to Anjouan and ALSI-202606048-FI2; the Curaçao lookup of 12 September 2026 instead returns an active Curaçao entry for metaspins.com — company Metaspins N.V., number OGL/2024/1063/0437. Neither record mentions the other. |
 VaveEditors’ real-money account | Curaçao: vavegame.com on the certificate | Certificate OGL/2024/1676/0905 belongs to Latcas B.V. and has been in force since 19 May 2025. In the lookup of 12 September 2026 the one domain under it was vavegame.com — vave.com did not show. |
| 7Bitsler | Curaçao: active in the register | Holder Oyine N.V.; number OGL/2024/930/0387, granted 22 July 2024; bitsler.com was under it in the 12 September 2026 lookup. Bitsler’s own terms keep calling it an application. |
2 Rocketpot | Curaçao: number came back not valid | The terms quote 1668/JAZ in clause 1.2. Looked up on 12 September 2026 and once more the next day, that number was shown as «not valid». |
The table on this page sets the six side by side. Here is what each gap is, based on the terms and the register readings of September 2026.
Until 29 May 2026 this brand was Jackbit. The certificate behind the current name is OGL/2024/1562/1139: its holder is Data Link Digital B.V., its issue date 23 July 2025, its domain jack.com. The old jackbit.com address has its own, separate certificate. So the brand changed its name, the new domain got its own licence entry, and the old domain kept a different one.
For a player the practical point is simple: the entry that covers your account is the one for the domain you actually use. Jack.com's identity-check cells on this list show «—», so the terms that would set its papers and deadline are the thing to read first.
The certificate for Wild.io names Nonce Gaming B.V. as holder. The terms name Stack Gaming Ltd. The register entry does match the casino's address, which is why Wild.io earns the licence point. Both company names stay in its cell, because nothing on file says which of the two would request or keep your documents. Like Jack.com, its identity-check cells show «—».
Clause 1.1 of the Metaspins terms points to Anjouan and licence ALSI-202606048-FI2. The Curaçao register, searched on 12 September 2026, returns OGL/2024/1063/0437 as active, with Metaspins N.V. as holder and metaspins.com as the domain. Neither record mentions the other, and nothing in the terms explains the pair.
This one matters because Metaspins has a full set of identity rules. Clause 9.7 allows a check at any time and holds payments until it is done, and 9.10 gives you 30 days for documents, after which withdrawals can be withheld and the remaining balance confiscated. With two licences in two places, it is worth knowing which company those clauses belong to before a request comes. The Metaspins review sets both records next to the clauses.
The Vave certificate, OGL/2024/1676/0905, was issued to Latcas B.V. and has run from 19 May 2025. The lookup of 12 September 2026 found one domain on that certificate, and it was vavegame.com; vave.com did not show up.
Its identity rules leave little doubt: under 8.7, Vave may verify you ahead of a payout, it lists the papers (a selfie holding your ID, a selfie with ID and a handwritten sheet with the site name and date, a phone or video call) and it gives 14 days to send them. The open question is only whether the company behind vave.com and the one on the vavegame.com certificate are the same, which the terms and the register do not settle between them.
On 22 July 2024 Oyine N.V. received OGL/2024/930/0387, and bitsler.com was listed under it on 12 September 2026. The terms, however, still describe that number as an application. Here the register is ahead of the terms rather than the other way round. The holder and domain match; only the wording in the terms is out of date. Its papers are named in 4.3 and 4.4: an ID every time, and now and then a utility bill or bank extract dated within the last three months.
Clause 1.2 of the Rocketpot terms quotes 1668/JAZ. Searched on 12 September 2026 and once more the next day, that number came back as «not valid». Unlike the other five, this is not a mismatch between two names; the register simply does not confirm the licence the terms print.
Rocketpot's identity rules are some of the most complete on the list: two written sums (11.4 and 12.4), papers named in 11.8 including a message signed from the wallet of an early deposit, and 30 calendar days to send them under 12.2, after which funds can be frozen. What the register result leaves unclear is the licence those clauses sit under. The Rocketpot explainer looks at the operator side in more detail.
A related case sits outside the six: Rainbet prints no licence number at all, and clause 21.6 names only a licensing company, Gaming Services Provider N.V.
When a check starts, the deadline and the consequence come from the terms, not the certificate. That makes the company in the terms the one to identify first. Across the list, five sets of terms write a deadline: Rainbet allows 72 hours (20.1) and Vave 14 days (8.7); Wild Fortune says two weeks (8.4 and 9.3), Rocketpot 30 calendar days (12.2), Metaspins 30 days (9.10). Two of those five, Metaspins and Rocketpot, are among the six above.
If you hold a balance at one of them, the most useful preparation has little to do with the licence. Have the named papers ready, keep the deadline in mind, and know which company name appears at the top of the terms so that any request you receive can be matched to it. The papers and deadlines page lists every document the terms name.
Vave · 28 August 2026
At Vave the editors funded an account with their own money and cashed out from it. Identity papers were not requested while the running total of withdrawals sat below roughly 5,000 USDT. One account, one stretch of play: that is an observation. The rule remains clause 8.7, under which Vave may verify a player ahead of any payout.
TrustDice · May 2026
At TrustDice the editors paid in USDT over a stretch of weeks. Nothing was checked until the sum of their withdrawals went past about US$5,000. At that point a new request was labelled “payment under review”. Compliance then wrote with a Veriff link. A driving licence was rejected, and a passport was accepted at the fifth upload. Later still, TrustDice sent a second email asking for documents.
The editors put their own money into two accounts, one with Vave on 28 August 2026 and one with TrustDice in May 2026. Neither settles any of these name questions, and neither was meant to. At TrustDice the request came as a compliance email with a Veriff link once cumulative withdrawals passed about US$5,000; the driving licence failed, the passport got through on the fifth go, and documents were later requested a second time by email. The observation that matters here is small: the request named a process, and the account holder had to know whom they were answering. The cards on this page give both accounts in full.
The full list with fact boxes shows the licence note of every casino, including the six above.
