The figures that exist
Three operators name an amount, and each one names a clause
Rocketpot, Bitcasino.io and Empire.io are the only three of the ten whose terms contain an amount above which documents are requested. Here is what each one says, where it says it, and why the three figures cannot be lined up against one another.
| Casino | Check threshold in the terms | Withdrawal cap | Licence | Coins listed | Go |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vavepaid placement | not published | not published | not published | not published | Visit |
| Rocketpot | $2,500 | 5,000 USD per month cl. 11.5 | Curacao | 13 | |
| Bitcasino.io | 2,500 EUR | 1,000,000 USDT per week cl. 6.10 | Curaçao Gaming Authority | not published | |
| Wild Fortune | not published | 15,000 EUR per month cl. 11.8 | Anjouan Gaming Board | 10 | |
| DuckDice | not published | not published | Anjouan Gaming Board | 10 | |
| Empire.io | 2,000 USDT | not published | Anjouan Gaming Board | not published | |
| Metaspins | not published | not published | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 8 | |
| Oshi Casino | not published | 4,000 EUR per day cl. 12 | Anjouan Gaming Board | 10 | |
| PlayAmo | not published | 7,500 EUR per week cl. 12 | Anjouan Gaming Board | 7 | |
| Rainbet | not published | not published | Anjouan Gaming Board | 9 |
What counts as a threshold
A threshold, for the purposes of this site, is an amount written into an operator's terms above which identity documents are requested. It has to be a figure, in a stated unit, in a clause that can be pointed at. Anything else — a policy page saying checks may be run, a support agent's remark quoted in a forum, a number that appears on three comparison sites and in no terms document — is not a threshold and is not recorded as one.
That definition is narrow on purpose, and it is why only three of ten operators appear on this page.
The three, with their clauses
Rocketpot names 2,500 USD in clause 11.4. Rocketpot is also one of two operators here that publish a launch year, 2018, and it lists the longest coin selection in the set at 13 coins. Its company is Danneskjold Ventures B.V. and its licence is an older-format Curaçao number, 1668/JAZ.
Bitcasino.io names 2,500 EUR in clause 6.6. The operating company is Moon Technologies B.V. and the licence is a Curaçao Gaming Authority permission, OGL/2023/111/0069, recorded in the register as active. Bitcasino.io also publishes the largest withdrawal cap in the whole set — 1,000,000 USDT per week in clause 6.10 — which makes its row an unusually complete one: two separate money-related gates, both with numbers, both with clause references.
Empire.io names 2,000 USDT in clause 5.4. Its company is Pixel Entertainment Limited, and it holds an Anjouan Gaming Board licence numbered ALSI-132405042-FI3. Empire.io is one of three operators in the set whose terms we read from an archived copy rather than a live page, which is noted on its row and in the method notes; the clause and the figure are what the document said when it was captured.
Three figures, three currencies, three clause numbers in three different parts of three different documents. That is the entire population of published thresholds among these ten operators.
Why the three numbers are not lined up here
It would be easy, and it would look authoritative, to convert all three into one currency and sort them. This site does not, and the reason is not fussiness.
The moment 2,500 EUR becomes a dollar figure, the number on the page is one that appears in nobody's terms. It depends on a rate, and on the day the rate was taken, and neither of those is in clause 6.6. The clause number beside a figure is a promise that you can open the operator's document and find that exact figure at that exact place. A converted number breaks the promise while looking more precise than the original — which is the worst combination a comparison table can produce.
So the three are printed in their own units, and the comparison a reader can actually make is the one that survives the units: three operators have committed to a line, and seven have not. Within the three, the stated figures sit in the same broad region rather than orders of magnitude apart, and that is as far as an honest reading goes without a conversion nobody's terms authorise.
What a published threshold does and does not promise
It is worth being clear about the size of the thing being praised here, because it is smaller than it sounds.
A published threshold tells you that the operator has described, in writing, a condition under which it does not routinely require documents. That is a real commitment, and it is one you can quote back. In a dispute it is the difference between arguing about what is reasonable and arguing about what is written.
It does not mean documents cannot be requested below the line. Every one of these three operators, like every regulated operator anywhere, remains subject to anti-money-laundering obligations that can be triggered by things having nothing to do with the size of a withdrawal. A threshold describes the routine case, not the only case. Read the clause and you will usually find it framed that way.
It also says nothing at all about how fast documents get reviewed once submitted, or how the review goes. That is a service question, and service questions are not answerable by reading. This site does not hold an account with any of these operators and has never tested one, so it makes no claim about any of it.
Why the rest of the table does not get a guessed number
The seven operators without a published threshold are covered separately under who reserves the right instead. The short version belongs here too, because it is the most common way a reader gets misled about exactly this topic.
Six of those seven do publish a verification clause; it is just not a figure. It says the operator may require documents where it considers it appropriate. Faced with that, a comparison site has two options. It can write not published, which is accurate and slightly unsatisfying. Or it can find a number somewhere — a forum post, a competitor's table, a plausible-looking round figure — and place it in the cell, at which point the table reads beautifully and one row in it is fiction.
The seventh, Vave, is the paid partner of this site, and its cell is empty too. There was no readable terms page, so there is no clause, no figure and no wording recorded. If the empty-cell rule bent for anyone it would bend there, and it does not.
Reading the clause yourself
Every figure on this page carries a clause number for one reason: so the reading can be checked rather than trusted. The clause numbering in an operator's terms is stable enough to navigate by, and the paragraph will normally be inside a section headed verification, account security, or withdrawals.
When you get there, three things are worth noticing beyond the number itself. Which currency the figure is stated in, because it may not be the currency you deposit in. Whether the figure applies per withdrawal or cumulatively across the account, because those are very different lines. And whether the same section contains a second, discretionary sentence sitting alongside the threshold — most sets of terms have both, and the discretionary sentence is the one that governs everything the number does not cover.
The rules that produced this page, including what makes a source count, are set out under how the terms are read.