This page explains how the primary sources behind this site's profiles were read, and what happens when a reading returns nothing. There are two sources, and only two: the terms and conditions published by the operator, and the entry in the register of the body that issued the licence. No third-party reviews, tables from other comparison sites, press releases or customer support replies were used. No account was opened with the brands described and no deposit was made: here documents are read, not games played.<\/p>\n
The library starts from one hundred brands. Of these, 38 were read live on the operator's pages and 41 from an archived copy of the same pages. Twenty-one returned nothing: for these twenty-one every field is empty and no profile is written about them. The difference between a live reading and an archived reading deserves an honest clarification: the archived copy shows that a certain text was published at a certain moment, not that it is the current one. The site marks the difference instead of mixing the two things.<\/p>\n
Two pages show the limits of this method better than the others: which cryptocurrencies the brands read accept<\/a>, because seventy brands out of one hundred publish nothing readable, and safety and responsible gambling<\/a>, because no document answers that question. The full comparison is in crypto casinos in Italy<\/a>.<\/p>\n The legal pages of some operators do not open at all from a non-domestic network infrastructure, or are drawn by the browser and are not present in the downloaded document. The fact is technical and should be described in neutral terms: there are no instructions, there are no solutions, and there is no mention of ways to get around a block. The archived reading covers part of the gap, but not all of it.<\/p>\n Who keeps this site, and by what criterion, is written in about us<\/a>.<\/p>\n From each contract a limited number of fields is sought: the licence number and the body that issued it, the holding company, the wording of the identity verification clause and any threshold in money, the withdrawal cap with its period and its currency, the list of excluded countries, the list of accepted cryptocurrencies, the game providers, the year of foundation. Nothing else is sought.<\/p>\n An empty box in this library means one thing only: neither the terms nor the register said anything readable about that field. It does not mean \u00abit has no licence\u00bb, it does not mean \u00abthere is no cap\u00bb, it does not mean \u00abit does not ask for documents\u00bb, it does not mean \u00abit excludes no country\u00bb. The point is arithmetic before it is legal: 86 brands do not publish a withdrawal cap. Treating that silence as \u00abno limits\u00bb would be the opposite error to the one the site tries to avoid, because contracts as a rule leave the operator free to set a limit case by case without stating the figure in advance. The reader interested in withdrawals and limits<\/a> will find the figures that exist and the silences that have not been filled.<\/p>\n The same applies in reverse: 62 brands do not have a readable list of countries excluded by the terms<\/a>, and this does not make them open to everyone. An absent list is not an empty list. It is a document that says nothing on that point.<\/p>\n The rule applies to every field of the library, with no exception. The silence of the contract is not translated into an answer.<\/p>\n The wording of the identity verification clause was read in 49 contracts out of one hundred. Of these 49, only five contain a figure at which verification is triggered. They are Bitcasino.io at clause 6.6, Sportsbet.io at clause 6.6, Livecasino.io at clause 6.6, Rocketpot at clause 11.4 and Empire.io at clause 5.4. All the other thresholds that circulate in the comparison tables of the sector do not exist in any contract read. The number is the most important one on the page: out of one hundred contracts, five. The detail can be consulted on the page dedicated to identity verification<\/a>.<\/p>\n The 49 readable clauses are not all alike: some describe the moment at which the documents are requested, others merely reserve the right to ask for them. The distinction was recorded, but it does not weigh as much as the presence or absence of a figure. When a figure is there, the contract says something precise. When it is not, the contract leaves the moment and the manner open.<\/p>\n A figure without the clause number cannot be verified by an outsider, and an unverifiable figure is indistinguishable from an invented one. So every amount reported as the content of a contract carries with it the point where it sits: 15,000 \u20ac per month at clause 11.8 of Wild Fortune, 4,000 \u20ac per day at clause 8.1 of Instant Casino, 7,500 \u20ac per week at clause 12 of PlayAmo, 10,000 $ per single transaction at clause 10 of Bets.io. Anyone who wants to check knows exactly where to open the document.<\/p>\n Where the clause number was not there, the figure is still reported but not presented as a quotation from a clause. It is a small distinction and it changes everything: a figure without a position is a piece of data the reader cannot verify alone, and it is treated as such.<\/p>\nWhat does an empty box mean?<\/h2>\n
How many identity verification clauses contain a figure?<\/h2>\n
Why does a figure travel with the clause number?<\/h2>\n
How many licence numbers were verified in a register?<\/h2>\n