Section two
What a licence number proves and what it does not
We read the licence numbers of nine of the ten operators — five from Curacao, four from Anjouan. We did not read the tenth, so it stays unverified. None of these numbers is an Indian permission.
Four things taken from ten operators' own documents: the jurisdiction and number of the licence, the amount above which the terms start talking about identity verification, the declared withdrawal limit, and the company in whose name the site runs. Every figure carries the clause number it came from. A blank cell means we did not read that information — not that the value is zero and not that there is no limit. None of these licences is an Indian permission; no such permission exists in India at all.
- VaveOur partner · Advertisement
-
- LicenceCuraçao No number
- Stated verification amountcase by case
- Withdrawal limitabove this 50,000 USDT in instalments clause 8.8
- Cryptocurrencies90
- CompanyTechOptions Group B.V.
- Rocketpot
-
- LicenceCuracao
- Stated verification amountUS$2,500
- Withdrawal limit5,000 USD per month clause 11.5
- Cryptocurrencies13
- CompanyDanneskjold Ventures B.V.
- Bitcasino.io
-
- LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
- Stated verification amount2,500 EUR
- Withdrawal limit10,00,000 USDT per week clause 6.10
- CryptocurrenciesWe did not read this
- CompanyMoon Technologies B.V.
- Wild Fortune
-
- LicenceAnjouan Gaming Board
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limit15,000 EUR per month clause 11.8
- Cryptocurrencies10
- CompanyMetlait SRL
- DuckDice
-
- LicenceAnjouan Gaming Board
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limitWe did not read this
- Cryptocurrencies10
- CompanyZentari Limitada
- Empire.io
-
- LicenceAnjouan Gaming Board
- Stated verification amount2,000 USDT
- Withdrawal limitWe did not read this
- CryptocurrenciesWe did not read this
- CompanyPixel Entertainment Limited
- Metaspins
-
- LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limitWe did not read this
- Cryptocurrencies8
- Company3-102-959384 SRL
- Rainbet
-
- LicenceAnjouan Gaming Board
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limitWe did not read this
- Cryptocurrencies9
- CompanyRBGAMING N.V.
- Shuffle
-
- LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limitWe did not read this
- Cryptocurrencies6
- CompanyNatural Nine B.V.
- Wild.io
-
- LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
- Stated verification amountWe did not read this
- Withdrawal limit1,00,000 USD per week clause 9.6
- Cryptocurrencies12
- CompanyStack Gaming Ltd.
Vave
Rocketpot
Bitcasino.io
Wild Fortune
DuckDice
Empire.io
Metaspins
Rainbet
Shuffle
Wild.ioThe only way to check
There is a seal in the footer of a casino site. It carries the name of some authority, and sometimes it is even clickable. That seal is a picture and proves nothing — anyone can put up a picture.
What does prove something is the licence number, and only when it is seen in the issuing authority's own register. So the rule on this site is straightforward: if there is a number, the licence is recorded; if there is no number, the operator stays unverified — whatever name is written on its site.
Five Curacao, four Anjouan
Four entries of the Curacao Gaming Authority have their status recorded as active in the register. Bitcasino.io's number is OGL/2023/111/0069. Metaspins is OGL/2024/1063/0437. Shuffle is OGL/2024/1337/0628. Wild.io is OGL/2024/210/0198. The format is easy to recognise: OGL, then the year, then two more numbers.
The fifth Curacao name is Rocketpot, and its number looks different — 1668/JAZ. This is the style of the older system, when licences were issued as sub-licences under a master licence. The number exists, so it is recorded in the table; but we did not read its current status in the register, so the status cell is blank. This is not a claim against it — it only says that we did not make that check.
The Anjouan Gaming Board has four entries, and all four are recorded as valid: Wild Fortune's ALSI-202509073-FI2, DuckDice's ALSI-202509013-FI1, Empire.io's ALSI-132405042-FI3 and Rainbet's ALSI-152406029-FI2. Here too the format is worth stating — ALSI, then digits, then FI and a digit — because any "Anjouan number" outside that format deserves suspicion at first glance.
The tenth name is Vave. For it we found neither a jurisdiction nor a number. So its licence cell in the table is blank and on this site it is unverified. That same name is also the paying partner of this site, and the rule stays the same for it too.
Two registers, two different methods
On the Curacao side the check is made from the certificate page: every active licence has its own page, showing the operator's name, the company and the status. That is why the word "active" could be written for four Curacao entries on this site — it was read from the page, not from the operator's own site.
On the Anjouan side there is a public licence register in which entries are listed. The method is the same: the number the operator states is looked up in the register.
One thing is common to both places, and it should be written plainly. A name being in a register means only that the authority holds an entry. It is not proof of the quality of the service, not a guarantee that money will arrive, and no assurance of an outcome in any dispute. It is checkability alone — which is better than nothing, but nothing more than that.
What this means in the Indian context
Now the point that puts this whole page in its place.
None of these licences authorises anything in India. A Curacao licence is issued under the law of Curacao and carries its meaning that far; an Anjouan licence under the law of Anjouan. In India, online money gaming is prohibited by the Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025, and that prohibition is not lifted by an entry in some foreign register.
So a licence number has one use on this site: checking whether what an operator says about itself is recorded somewhere outside. It is not the answer to "who is valid for India", because that question cannot even be asked here — there is no Indian register in which the answer could sit. The full detail of this point is on what the law says.
The restricted-country list is a separate document
Alongside the licence there is another document that people often take to be part of it: the operator's own list of restricted countries. We read that list for nine operators and found India named in none of them. Vave's list we could not read.
This fact has to be kept in its place. That list is a commercial policy — the company decides which countries it does not want accounts from, usually on the basis of its licence conditions, its payment partners or its risk assessment. That list makes no statement about the law of India and cannot change it either. A company's silence is not a permission.
One more thing, which shows up often in this category: the standard conditions of a licence and the operator's own list are not always the same. They are two different documents, they change at different times, and sometimes what is written in one is not in the other. That is why they sit in two separate cells on this site, and are not merged into one.
What false claims look like
Since there is only one way to check, the shapes taken by claims that avoid checking are also few in number.
The commonest shape is the name of an authority with no number — a sentence like "licensed in Curacao" with no number beside it. The second shape is a number that does not match its format: new Curacao entries begin with OGL and Anjouan ones with ALSI, so any "number" that looks different from these is worth a look at first glance.
The third shape is the most misleading — a claim that names a system that does not exist at all. In the Indian context, the claim of an "Indian licence" is exactly that: it cannot be checked, not because the register is hard to reach, but because the register does not exist.
What we did not read
For the sake of transparency, it should also be written down what is not on this page.
We did not read the renewal date of any licence. We did not look at whether any complaint against an operator is on file with an authority. We did not read Rocketpot's current status. And we did not read Vave's documents at all — not the licence, not the terms, not the country list.
None of these absences is counted for or against any operator. What was read is recorded with its clause number; what was not read is recorded as "we did not read this". The full detail of that rule is on how we read the terms.
