Ten documents, eight different section numbers

The identity clause on this table sits at 5.4, 6.6, 8.7, 9.7, 11.4, 12, 18.1 and in a section numbered 2. One operator splits the rule across clauses 5.2 and 8.3, and two operators share clause 12 because they share a document.

What ten operators write in their own terms about the identity check, the withdrawal cap and the licence they hold. Each figure carries the clause it was copied from. An empty cell means the operator publishes nothing we could read on that point — it is not a zero and it is not a permission.
Casino	Check threshold in the terms	Withdrawal cap	Licence	Coins listed	Go
Vavepaid placement	case by case	from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8	Curaçao Gaming Authority	90	Visit
Rocketpot	US$2,500	5,000 USD per month cl. 11.5	Curacao	13	The clauses
Bitcasino.io	2,500 EUR	1,000,000 USDT per week cl. 6.10	Curaçao Gaming Authority	not read	The clauses
Wild Fortune	case by case	15,000 EUR per month cl. 11.8	Anjouan Gaming Board	10	The clauses
DuckDice	case by case	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board	10	The clauses
Empire.io	2,000 USDT	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board	not read	The clauses
Metaspins	case by case	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority	8	The clauses
Oshi Casino	case by case	4,000 EUR per day cl. 12	Anjouan Gaming Board	10	The clauses
PlayAmo	case by case	7,500 EUR per week cl. 12	Anjouan Gaming Board	7	The clauses
Rainbet	case by case	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board	9	The clauses

A clause number is a coordinate, not a category

Every figure on this site is printed beside a clause number, and the reason is practical rather than decorative: the number is how a reader opens the same document and confirms the same sentence. It is a coordinate in one company's text.

What it is not is a standard.

There is no shared numbering across these documents, no convention that puts verification in section 9, and no way to guess where the sentence lives before opening the file. That sounds like a small point about formatting. It is actually the reason so many readers conclude that a casino has no verification rule: they looked in the obvious place, found nothing, and stopped.

DuckDice responsible gambling policy, the underage and vulnerable-player sections — The underage section spells out the whole consequence: any account created by an underage person is permanently blocked, available winnings are forfeited, and the contact details attached to it go onto a black list. Age is not checked at sign-up here — it is settled afterwards, by confiscation.

Where the rule actually sits at these ten

The identity clause of the ten operators compared here appears under eight different section numbers.

Empire.io states its 2,000 USDT figure in clause 5.4. Bitcasino.io states 2,500 EUR in clause 6.6. Rocketpot states 2,500 USD in clause 11.4. Vave, the operator that pays for its placement here, writes its discretionary rule and its fourteen-day deadline in clause 8.7. Metaspins writes its rule in clause 9.7, Wild Fortune in clause 18.1, and Oshi Casino and PlayAmo both in a clause numbered 12. DuckDice has no decimal numbering in the relevant part of its document at all: the rule sits in a section headed and numbered simply 2.

Eight coordinates, ten documents, one subject.

The spread runs from the second section of one document to the eighteenth of another, which is the practical case against reading any summary of a set of terms — including a summary published here. A reader who wants to know what a company has committed to has to open the company's own file, and the clause number in the table is there to shorten that search rather than to replace it.

Two brands, one clause number, one document

Oshi Casino and PlayAmo both carry the rule at clause 12, and the coincidence is not a coincidence. Both are operated by Novatrix SRL, and both appear in the Anjouan register under the same number, ALSI-202508056-FI2.

Two brands sharing a clause number usually means two brands sharing a drafter.

That matters when a reader is comparing what look like two independent options. Reading both documents feels like corroboration — the same rule in two places, so it must be standard — when in fact one text has been read twice. The two do differ where it counts: the withdrawal ceilings under that shared clause number are not the same, which is set out on one company, several brands.

The wider library makes the same point at scale. Across 100 brands, 68 publish a licence number and only 53 of those are distinct, with one Anjouan registration covering five brands at once. The counting is on one hundred brands.

Anjouan licence register, the search for ALSI-202509073-FI2 returning one row with a 29-domain list — wildfortune.io holds no licence of its own. The number it publishes resolves to one row: Metlait SRL, status Valid, type b2c, issued 30 September 2025, expiring 29 September 2026, with a domain column listing 29 sites and wildfortune.io among them. One permission, twenty-nine front doors. The expiry date falls twenty-seven days after this capture. The counter above the table reads 1 of 1508 licences, which is the whole check in one line: a number either returns a row in the register or it does not.

One rule, two clauses, at the same operator

Rainbet is the row that shows the other complication. Its verification rule is recorded here against clauses 5.2 and 8.3, because it takes two separate paragraphs in two separate sections to state.

This is common drafting and it defeats a lot of casual reading. The first clause typically establishes that the operator may require identification; the second, sitting inside the withdrawals section, states what happens to a payout while that requirement is outstanding. Read either one alone and the rule looks milder than it is: the first sounds like a formality with no consequence attached, and the second sounds like a procedural note with no explanation of when it applies.

The consequence and the trigger are frequently in different rooms.

The habit that fixes this is simple. Having found the clause, read the withdrawals section as well, and having found the withdrawals section, read the account or security section as well. On this table it is Vave's clause 8.7 that packs the most into one place — the discretion, the forms the check can take, the fourteen-day window and the consequence of missing it — and that concentration is unusual rather than typical, which is why it is the operator whose rule is described most fully across when documents are asked for.

Finding it in a document nobody has read for you

Open the terms, use the browser's own find function, and search five words in this order: verification, identity, documents, KYC, satisfaction.

The first four locate the rule. The fifth locates the sentence that decides how it ends, because to our satisfaction is the standard formula for a review with no defined finish, and it is often several paragraphs away from the clause that opened the subject.

Three other places are worth checking when the terms come back thin. An anti-money-laundering policy is frequently a separate file linked from a footer, and it can contain sharper language than the terms it accompanies. A help centre article can be made binding by a clause in the terms that defers to it — a deferral is a reference, and a reference is part of the contract. And a bonus or promotions policy sometimes carries its own verification condition that applies only to promotional balances.

If none of the five words returns anything anywhere, that is a result and it is worth writing down as one. It is not a promise that no check exists; it means the company has published nothing about a power every readable operator in this library reserves. This site records that state as not published, never as none, for the reason set out on how the terms are read.

Recording it so the reading survives

A clause number goes stale, and it goes stale silently. Terms are renumbered when a section is added, and a citation that pointed at the identity rule last quarter can point at a fee schedule this quarter without anybody being notified.

So record three things rather than one: the number, the words, and the date.

The number gets you back to the place. The quoted sentence survives a renumbering, which is why every figure on this site is stored beside the wording it came from rather than beside the coordinate alone. The date says what the reading is evidence about — the documents behind this table were read on 26 August 2026, with the paid partner re-read on 2 September 2026, and no reading is evidence about a document as it stands today.

Then sort the answer into one of three states: an amount with a clause, which can be quoted back; a discretion with a clause, which tells you who decides and nothing more, as set out on discretionary checks; or nothing found, which is the state that should never be tidied into either of the other two.