The terms say one authority, the register says another

The four rows on this table where the papers disagree

Four of these ten rows print a number that no register searched here returns for the domain, while a register answers with something else: Wild Fortune, Oshi Casino, PlayAmo and CryptoLeo. Only the first is set out in this section. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo belong in the next one and CryptoLeo in the one after, because the printed numbers fail in three different ways and the difference is the point.

Two registers are searched here — the Curacao certificate portal at cert.cga.cw and the Anjouan public register — and neither of them is the Tobique Gaming Commission, which matters immediately.

Wild Fortune names a Tobique Gaming Commission licence, number 0000064, in clause 1.1, and repeats it in the footer of its own site. The Curaçao certificate portal returns nothing for wildfortune.io. The Anjouan public register does return an entry for that domain, and it is a different authority, a different number and a different company: ALSI-202509073-FI2, held by Metlait SRL. So the operator points at one regulator and the register that answers points at another. That Anjouan entry also runs out at the end of September 2026, which is the sort of fact a static footer logo cannot carry.

Metaspins is not one of the four, and the reason is worth stating rather than folding into a count. It prints Anjouan licence ALSI-202606048-FI2 in clause 1.1, and the Anjouan register returns exactly that number for it: valid, issued 30 June 2026, running to 29 June 2027, held by a company registered as 3-102-959384 SRL. Searched on metaspins.com, the Curaçao certificate portal also answers, with OGL/2024/1063/0437, operated by Metaspins N.V., company number 160102, status Active. Both entries are live. Two registers, two numbers, two corporate names, and nothing in either document that makes one of them the real one — so both are printed here rather than reconciled to whichever looks tidier. Twelve brands in the network's fact library sit in that position, and Metaspins is the only one on this table.

Its terms also call the authority the Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority in one place and the Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan in another. That is a naming inconsistency inside one document, not a conflict between two.

Bitsler is not one of the four either, and it is the subtlest row on the table. The number in its terms is OGL/2024/930/0387, and the certificate portal, searched on bitsler.com, returns that same number: a Certificate of Operation naming Oyine N.V., company number 144430, status Active. The two claims agree. What clause 1.1 adds is that the reference describes an application in progress with the Curaçao Gaming Control Board, while the company trades meanwhile under a Certificate of Operation and a transitional arrangement.

An application reference and an issued licence number are the same shape, the same length and the same font. Matching the register is not the same as meaning what a reader assumes it means.

When the printed number resolves to nothing at all

Two of the four are here, and they fail in the same way at the same time. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo both print OGL/2023/174/0082 on their own sites. Neither domain returns anything from the Curaçao certificate portal. What does answer is the Anjouan register, and it answers for both with one entry: ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL.

Two more brands outside this table print the same OGL/2023/174/0082, and they belong to the same company. Four sites, one printed number that resolves nowhere, and one register number that resolves for all of them. Which company you would actually be dealing with is the subject of who holds the licence.

Bitdreams gives a different kind of answer again, and it is a fifth case rather than one of the four. Its row records Antillephone N.V. and the reference 8048/JAZ2019–015, in the older master-licence format. The Curaçao certificate portal, searched on bitdreams.com, returns a page saying in as many words that the Certificate of Operation for that domain is not valid, and that the operator may have obtained a licence or may have been rejected. That is a register answering, and the answer is not a yes.

Vave, the paid partner in this table, is the inverse case: it publishes no licence number anywhere on its own site, and the register answers for the domain with OGL/2024/1676/0905, Latcas B.V., active. A number that exists only in the register is a stronger fact than a number that exists only in a footer, and the two are opposite failures of the same column.

The old master-licence strings, and why they keep turning up

Two rows here carry a reference to 1668/JAZ. Bitcasino.io states OGL/2023/111/0069 on its homepage and help pages, while its anti-money-laundering page states Gaming License Number 1668/JAZ and names the Curaçao Gaming Control Board as the supervisory authority. Both strings sit on the same operator's own site, in documents written at different times and never reconciled. The certificate portal returns OGL/2023/111/0069 for bitcasino.io, operated by Moon Technologies B.V., company number 152185, status Active.

CryptoLeo is the fourth of the four. It prints No. 1668 JAZ, and in another place the sublicence form B2C-AK2QPM3H-1668JAZ. Neither string is what the certificate portal returns for cryptoleo.com; that answer is OGL/2024/1267/0760, operated by Uno Digital Media B.V., company number 157147, status Active. The Anjouan register holds nothing for the domain at all.

Across the wider library five brands carry a 1668 reference of some kind. It is a legacy master-licence identifier from the arrangement Curaçao replaced, and it survives because a footer is copied forward every time a site is redesigned. Reading it as a current permission is the single most common way a comparison table ages badly.

A typing error is not a conflict

One of the fifteen mismatches in the library is a typing error rather than a conflict: a brand prints ALSI-092404013-F12 where the register holds ALSI-092404013-FI2, a capital I read as a one. Nothing is wrong with the licence. Everything is wrong with the string a reader would paste into the search box.

What to do with the cell, as a reader

Search the register on the domain, not on the brand. Brands are marketing names and registers are indexed by the thing that has legal weight; the same search that found nothing under a brand name has returned a live entry when the domain was used instead.

Then read the answer word rather than the presence of an entry. Active, revoked, not valid and not found are four different states, and only the first is what the footer badge implies. Where the terms and the register disagree, treat the row as unconfirmed rather than picking a side — that is what this table does on the four rows above. Where two registers both answer, as on Metaspins, both entries are printed rather than one of them chosen.

A resolvable entry still proves less than it looks. It says a permit exists and who holds it. It says nothing about whether a withdrawal will be paid, which is governed by the clauses on what a withdrawal actually does and capped by the numbers on withdrawal ceilings. And it says nothing about Australian law, which issues none of these permits and is set out on the Act page. If a payout stalls anyway, the register is one of three addressees and the weakest of them for getting money back — the ranking is on if a payout stalls.

Every reading on this page came from a published document or a public register, and where a document stayed shut the cell says so. How that is decided is on who writes this.