Across a hundred brands in the library, the coin list could be read for thirty. Among the ten houses in this table, eight publish a list, and the length runs from six coins to thirteen. Bitcoin, ether and tether appear in all eight; the difference between the short list and the long one sits in the tail, and almost never in what you are going to use.
The coin list is the easiest field to find and one of the least useful for telling one house from another, which explains why it turns up in so many comparisons.
Among the ten houses in this table, eight publish a list.
Vave and Shuffle write six names. Metaspins writes eight, Rainbet nine, DuckDice ten, Wild.io twelve, Rocketpot and Wolf.bet thirteen. Bitcasino.io and Empire.io did not have a list read, and the cell stays empty rather than take a zero that would be false.
Across the whole library the proportion is similar: a coin list read at thirty brands in a hundred.
Laid one over another, the eight lists reveal an identical core.
Bitcoin appears in all eight. Ether appears in all eight. Tether appears in all eight. Litecoin appears in seven.
Four names cover almost everything anyone actually uses.
After that core the repetition collapses. Bitcoin cash, dogecoin, tron, ripple and solana appear in about half the lists. Cardano and USD coin appear in four. Binance coin in three. Below that, each name appears once or twice.
The practical conclusion comes out of reading them that way, and it runs against how the lists are sold.
Anyone arriving with bitcoin, ether or tether in their wallet finds all eight houses equally equipped. The list of thirteen only makes a difference to someone carrying monero, dash, polkadot or a network-specific token, and that is a narrow audience.
Counting coins measures the catalogue, not the cashier.
Nothing in the count tells you the withdrawal time, the ceiling or the request for a document, which are the fields where money actually jams. Those are in withdrawals and limits and in identity verification.
There is a detail in Rocketpot's list that almost no comparison records, and it is worth more than half the exotic names put together.
The house writes tether twice, once for each network on which it accepts it. That is not redundancy: it is an acknowledgement that the same coin, on different networks, costs different fees and arrives in different times.
The coin is the same; the rail is not.
Anyone who sends on one network and expects to receive on another usually discovers the problem halfway. None of the other seven lists makes that distinction in writing, which does not mean the networks do not exist there; it means only that the document does not separate them.
Among the six coins Shuffle publishes, one is a token issued by the house itself.
That is neither a defect nor a merit, but it changes the nature of the item. The other coins on the list exist outside the site and can be taken away; an in-house token is worth something inside the environment that issued it, and its value depends on whoever issued it.
A list of six with an in-house token holds, in outside money, five names.
That is why this site records the list as written and does not reduce it to a loose number. The number is what usually becomes the headline in other people's comparisons, and it is the least informative thing there.
There is a cost that runs through every one of these lists and appears in none of the ten texts we read: the fee the coin's network charges to move the money.
Whoever charges that fee is not the house. It is the network, and it varies with congestion at the moment.
Since we do not have that figure in a document, it does not enter a column and does not enter an estimate. A made-up number in that field would be comfortable for whoever is writing and expensive for whoever is reading, and the inventory of such absences is in what the table does not say.
Among the ten, three describe themselves as cryptocurrency-only houses: Metaspins, Rocketpot and Wolf.bet. The other seven make no such declaration in the data we read.
The difference matters less than it looks for anyone in Brazil.
At all ten, the deposit that concerns us arrives in coin regardless, because that is the only rail available to someone coming from here. The practical question is not whether the house accepts state currency in some other country; it is where the real becomes a coin before it gets there.
None of the eight lists mentions the real, and that moves the question off the house's own site.
The real becomes cryptocurrency somewhere else, almost always at an exchange operating in Brazil, and that exchange asks for a CPF at sign-up. So an identification exists along the way even when the house asks for none.
That step usually falls outside comparisons, and it is drawn in full in real, Pix and crypto. The frame of the two orders of requirement, the authorised shopfront's and the terms', is in two lists of requirements.
The answers below come from the eight lists read, and say when a list was not read.
How many coins do these houses accept?
Which coin appears in every list?
Is a list of thirteen coins better than one of six?
Is the network fee written in any of these documents?