A comparison table starts lying the moment it treats an empty cell as an advantage. This page does the opposite: it walks field by field through the ten houses, says how many fill each one and how many do not, and explains the difference between a clause read without a figure and a clause we could not locate at all.
A gap is also a result
There is an obvious temptation for anyone building a table: fill the cell that came out empty with a dash, a zero or the word “unlimited”, because a tidy column looks better.
Each of those three options is an assertion nobody read in any document.
Here the empty cell is empty on purpose, and this page exists to count how many there are. A reader who knows the size of the hole decides better than a reader handed an invented number, even if the second table looks more complete.
Licence: ten numbers, eight statuses
This is the best-filled field in the table, and even it has a hole.
All ten houses publish a licence number: six from Curaçao and four from Anjouan. All ten also name the holding company, although one of them, Metaspins, appears in the register only under a corporate number.
The registration status, though, was read at eight. At Rocketpot and Wolf.bet the field stayed empty, and empty there means we could not read the status, not that it is bad.
Eight statuses read, two unread, none revoked.
Excluding revoked registrations is automatic when the table is assembled, and the reason is in the foreign licence.
Identity: nine clauses, three amounts
The clause dealing with documents was located at nine of the ten houses, with a clause number beside it. The exception is Wild.io, whose text describes the request for documents without our having located the number.
A written amount is another story: three in ten.
Bitcasino.io, Rocketpot and Empire.io write a sum. The other seven describe a criterion of their own, and the column says so in as many words rather than staying blank. It is a distinction worth a great deal when comparing: a clause with no figure is an absent commitment, not an absent requirement. The full reading is in identity verification.
Withdrawal ceiling: three figures in ten
Wild.io, Rocketpot and Bitcasino.io publish an amount with a period and a clause. The other seven do not.
Among those seven there is one case that deserves its own name: Metaspins has its limits clause located, 12.5, with no amount written inside it. Document read, figure absent.
A clause with no figure and a clause not found are different states.
The first says something about the house's text. The second says something about our reading. The full ruler, with the four periods that appear across the fourteen ceilings published among a hundred brands, is in withdrawals and limits.
Coins: eight lists in ten
Eight houses publish a coin list, from six names to thirteen. Bitcasino.io and Empire.io did not have a list read.
In those two empty cells we did not write a zero, because a zero would be a strong assertion: it would say the house accepts no coin at all, which is false by definition, since both work in cryptocurrency. The lists name by name are in coins and the cashier.
Founding year: two in ten
Here the hole is nearly total, and it is why there is no age column in this table.
Only Rocketpot, at 2018, and Wild.io, at 2022, publish a founding year in checkable form. At the other eight we found no date in any document. Across the library of a hundred brands, the year appears in eleven.
A brand's age is the most quoted figure and the least published.
It is worth remembering that the year inside a licence number does not solve this: it dates the registration, not the house.
Games, providers, support and fees
Four fields that appear in nearly every comparison and that did not become columns here, because the reading does not close.
The game-provider list was read at six of the ten, with very different sizes: 120 names at Bitcasino.io, 80 at Wild.io, 79 at Empire.io, 33 at Rainbet, 32 at Wolf.bet and 19 at DuckDice. At four houses we could read none.
Withdrawal time, network fee, bonus amount, minimum deposit and support channels are recorded in comparable form at none of the ten.
Six out of ten does not hold up a column.
A half-filled column looks like information and works as noise: whoever has the figure gains prominence for having published it, and whoever does not looks worse without anyone having read a thing about them. So those fields ended up in this paragraph, not in the table.
One reading came from an archived copy
Among the ten, nine were read at the house's own address. One, Empire.io, came from an archived copy of the text.
The difference matters because an archived copy shows the document as it was, and not necessarily as it is now. The figure stays valid as a dated reading, and the date is 26 August 2026.
Across the whole library the proportion is much worse: 38 live readings, 41 from an archived copy and 21 brands that could not be read at all. None of those 21 enters any table on this site, because a whole row of empty cells is worse than a missing row.
What to do with an inventory of holes
The use of this count shows up when reading any other comparison, including the ones that disagree with this one.
Look in someone else's table for a field that is empty here. If theirs is filled with a round number and no clause cited, ask where it came from. The three possible answers are: from the document, from another comparison site, or from nowhere.
A figure with no clause is not data; it is decoration.
The whole criterion, including what we do when we get something wrong, is in the methodology, and the route for redoing any of these readings is in checking it yourself.
Questions about the empty fields
The answers below repeat the counts above, with none of them rounded.
Does an empty cell mean the house has no such rule?
No. It means we did not read a figure in the document. The limit may exist without being published, and the request for a document exists at every house whose clauses we read. Counting empty as an absence of requirement would turn missing information into praise, and that is the commonest error in comparison tables.
Which field is the emptiest of all?
The founding year: among the ten houses, only two publish it in checkable form, Rocketpot at 2018 and Wild.io at 2022. Across the whole library of a hundred brands, the year appears in eleven. After that comes the amount that triggers the request for a document, present in three of the ten and five of the hundred.
Did any reading come from an archived copy?
One, among the ten: Empire.io's. The other nine were read at the house's own address, on 26 August 2026, with Vave checked again on 2 September. Across the library of a hundred brands, 38 were read live, 41 from an archived copy, and 21 could not be read at all.
Why is there no column for bonuses, games or withdrawal times?
Because we could not read those fields in comparable form across the ten houses. Withdrawal time, fee and bonus amount are recorded at none of them with a clause number beside them, and the provider list was read at six. A field read halfway does not become a column: it becomes this paragraph.
Written and checked by
the cassinocriptobrasil.com desk
Desk
we read operators' terms and licence registers; we hold an account with no house