The only brand that publishes both a verification threshold and a payout cap
Transcribed from the terms
Of the ten brands we track, Bitcasino.io is the only one whose terms carry a figure in both places at once: a verification threshold of €2,500 in clause 6.6 and a payout cap of a million USDT a week in clause 6.10. The domain has meanwhile been on the Slovak list of prohibited offers since 1 June 2020.
Two figures that have to be read together
The verification threshold is in clause 6.6 and reads €2,500. The payout cap is in clause 6.10 and reads 1,000,000 USDT a week.
The first is low, the second restricts practically nobody. The smaller decides: long before a player nears the weekly cap he runs into the request for documents. That is why the two clauses make no sense apart, and why this brand is the best example of the ten — it publishes both figures, the others at most one.
An amount is the best form of that clause for the player, even a low one, because it can be planned around. A second appears in our table only once more, in another currency: Empire.io gives 2,000 USDT in clause 5.4. How the two differ from the seven others is in identity verification.
The edition of 31 August 2026 holds 1,120 valid records: 977 web addresses and 143 account numbers. Under § 85(2) the authority publishes it on the first working day of every week, and under paragraph 11 in machine-readable form — CSV, XML and XLSX.
The licence and two documents that contradict
The operator is Moon Technologies B.V. Licence OGL/2023/111/0069 was issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority, status active in the issuer's certificate register.
Inside the brand that item does not hold. The help pages give this number and this issuer, while the anti-money-laundering document names a different number and a different supervisory authority. These are not two versions of one entry, they are two different items in two documents of the same company. Contradictions inside one brand are stated in the overview, not smoothed over: casino without verification, brand by brand.
It does not prove the licence does not exist. It proves something more practical: an item differing across two of the brand's own documents proves nothing until you check the issuer's register yourself. The procedure, with three further contradictions, is in foreign licences.
A country list not read in full
This is the place where we corrected ourselves. We previously wrote that this brand's restricted-countries list has a single entry. It does not.
The terms refer to a full list, but the enumeration is not attached. The only country named is Japan. In what could be read we did not find Slovakia; the whole document has not been read. The difference between “it has one country” and “we read no further” matters to the player and we do not hide it.
Why this list matters more than the size of an offer is in foreign casino no-deposit bonus.
The file as at 1 September 2026 has 134 rows and 39 companies. Twenty-one of them hold a licence to run internet games in an internet casino. It is published in both CSV and XLSX.
On the Slovak list since 2020
Bitcasino.io is one of three brands in our ten whose address appears on the list of prohibited offers. Listed since 1 June 2020, the ground being § 85(4)(a) of zákon č. 30/2019 Z. z. — operating an internet game without an individual licence.
The entry also carries the provider's name the authority established then, and it does not match today's. The list gives mBet Solutions NV. and mProcessing Solutions Ltd, today's terms Moon Technologies B.V. The entry is from 2020, so on whom you contract with, the newer document applies.
On the terms themselves the entry has no effect. The €2,500 threshold and the cap in clause 6.10 stay as they were, being in the operator's document, not the authority's. What the entry changes are third parties' duties under § 85(12): the connectivity operator's and the payment provider's. The breakdown is in the list of prohibited offers.
What we did not read about this brand
The coin count is not in our material and has an empty cell in the table. An empty cell is not zero; no such item appears in the documents we read.
The bonus terms are a separate document we did not open here or anywhere else. So no bonus amount and no wagering requirement appear here. The withdrawal processing time we likewise did not transcribe, so no sentence here concerns payout speed.
We read the terms on 26 August 2026 on the brand's pages, in the help section on terms of business. The licence data come from the Curaçao Gaming Authority's certificate register.
What this means for a player from Slovakia
The brand holds no Slovak individual licence. Not one of our ten does; those that do are in who holds a Slovak licence.
For the player that means two things, neither an offence. The first is contractual: the money sits with a company not governed by Slovak law, and the only instance in a dispute is that company, or the authority issuing its licence. The second is self-exclusion: only a Slovak licensee checks the register of excluded persons at each login, so an entry there does not reach here. That the player is no supervised entity under § 80 is shown by what the law says.