One company, several signs over several doors

Sixty-eight brands in this network's fact library publish a licence number, and those numbers take only 53 different values. Nine of them cover 24 brands at once, because a regulator registers a company and a company runs as many brands as it likes.

Casino	Coins	Processing	Withdrawal limit	Before ID check	Operator	Welcome offer	Minimum deposit	Games	Studios	Payments	Wagering	Licence	Action
Vave	90	up to 3 days cl. 8.1	from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8	180 USDT withdrawn, no ID askedtested by us	Latcas B.V.	150% up to 1.5 BTC	not published	2,500	40	not published	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority	Open
We deposited here. Every other cell in this row comes from Vave’s own terms, section 8, read on 25 August 2026 — and those terms publish no amount at which an ID check starts. Clause 8.7 lets the operator ask before any payout, at its own discretion. So this cell is the one figure on the page that comes from a test rather than a document. On 28 August 2026 our editor deposited 60 USDT on TRC20, played, and withdrew 180 USDT to the same network. The payout arrived in two minutes and no ID was asked for. That is one test at one amount on one day, not a promise the operator will do the same for you, and clause 8.7 still allows the request on any withdrawal.
Bitcasino.io	12	up to 3 days cl. 6.1	not published	2,500 EUR	Moon Technologies B.V.	100% up to 1,500 USDT	0.25 USDT	5,000	not published	BTC · ETH · LTC · USDT	30×	Curaçao Gaming Authority
Wild Fortune	10	up to 3 days cl. 11.6	22,500 AUD /month cl. 11.8	case by case	Metlait SRL	100% up to C$3,000	20 EUR	not published	not published	BTC · BCH · ETH · LTC	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board
Metaspins	not read	not published	not published	case by case	Metaspins N.V.	100% up to 1 BTC	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority
Oshi Casino	10	not published	4,000 EUR /day cl. 12	case by case	Novatrix SRL	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board
PlayAmo	7	not published	7,500 EUR /week cl. 12	case by case	Novatrix SRL	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board
Bitdreams	5	not published	20,000 EUR /month cl. Section 11	case by case	Hollycorn N.V.	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Antillephone N.V.
Bitsler	not read	not published	not published	case by case	Oyine N.V.	200% up to $2,000 or 100% up to $1,000	5 USD	not published	not published	crypto from a wallet or exchange · connected exchange account · card purchase of crypto (ID required) · fiat deposit	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority
CoinCasino	not read	not published	500,000 EUR /month cl. 9.6	case by case	Igloo Ventures SRL	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Anjouan Gaming Board
CryptoLeo	7	not published	50,000 USDT /month cl. 7.9	case by case	Uno Digital Media B.V.	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority

A permit is issued to a company, not to a sign

The mental model most comparison tables encourage is one brand, one licence, one operator. The register works the other way round. An authority licenses a legal person — a company with an incorporation number in a corporate registry — and that company then trades under whatever names it wants. Nothing in the permit limits how many.

So the count that matters is not how many rows carry a number. It is how many separate companies those numbers resolve to. Across the library, 68 brands publish a number and 53 distinct values come back. Nine numbers do the work of 24 brands. Sixty-nine brands name a holding company and 54 different companies come back.

A table of ten rows can be six counterparties. Nobody prints that.

The Bitsler home page as served to a European connection — Captured 28 August 2026. The licence number in the table above (OGL/2024/930/0387, holder unrecorded) comes from the register entry rather than from the badge at the foot of this page.

The clearest case sits twice on this table

Novatrix SRL runs both Oshi Casino and PlayAmo, and a dispute with either is a dispute with the same company. The Anjouan register returns the same entry for both domains: ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL. Three further brands outside this table sit under the same registration, so one permit number covers five signs in total.

That has a practical edge that shows up before any dispute. Both rows publish a ceiling in the same withdrawal section and set it at different numbers — Oshi Casino at 4,000 EUR a day in clause 12, PlayAmo at 7,500 EUR a week in its clause 12 — which reads as two operators making two commercial choices. It is one company running two rule sets. Read side by side, the pair tells you what the company's policy range is rather than what two markets decided.

Two more pairs on this table extend outward. Bitcasino.io's number, OGL/2023/111/0069, is held by Moon Technologies B.V. and also covers Livecasino.io. CryptoLeo's OGL/2024/1267/0760 is held by Uno Digital Media B.V. and also covers Nine Casino. Neither of those siblings is on this page, which is exactly why a reader who avoids a brand after a bad experience can walk into the same company through a different door.

The holder and the counterparty are not always the same company

CoinCasino is the row that breaks the pattern, and it is worth a paragraph of its own. Its own pages state no gaming licence number at all. What they state is ownership: the service is owned by EOD Code SRL, registered in Costa Rica with corporate identification 3-101-910497 — a company registration, which is not a gambling permit and never was. The Anjouan register does return an entry for coincasino.com: ALSI-142311005-FI2, held by Igloo Ventures SRL.

So the permit is held by one company and the terms name another as owner. A complaint written to the licensing authority reaches the first. A contractual claim runs against whichever entity the terms name as your counterparty, and that is the second. On this table those are separate legal persons and the reader is given no statement reconciling them.

Metaspins produces the same split by a different route: the Curaçao certificate names Metaspins N.V., company number 160102, while the Anjouan entry for the number the operator itself prints is held by a company registered as 3-102-959384 SRL. The disagreement between those two documents is unpicked on where the licence number came from.

Section 8 of the Vave terms, the withdrawal policy, shown in full — Clause 8.7 allows an identity check before any payout, with 14 days to comply. Clause 8.8 allows a win of 50,000 USDT or more to be paid in instalments over 30 days.

Nine companies stand behind ten rows here

Written out, this table resolves to Latcas B.V., Moon Technologies B.V., Metlait SRL, Metaspins N.V., Novatrix SRL twice over, Hollycorn N.V., Oyine N.V., Igloo Ventures SRL and Uno Digital Media B.V. Four of those carry a Curaçao company number in the certificate itself — Oyine N.V. at 144430, Moon Technologies B.V. at 152185, Uno Digital Media B.V. at 157147 and Metaspins N.V. at 160102 — and that number, not the brand, is the thing a lawyer would search.

The register entry is therefore the only part of the licence column that tells you who you are actually dealing with. Everything else on the row is a trading name.

Nothing above is misconduct. Grouping brands under one company is ordinary corporate structure, and a regulator that licenses the company rather than the sign is behaving sensibly.

The version that does matter is the reverse case. Five brands in the library hold a permit the issuing authority has withdrawn, and three of those five sit on one number: OGL/2023/103/0067, held by Rabidi N.V., returned as revoked for Betriot, Casinoly and Zet Casino alike. One withdrawal, three storefronts still trading on the badge. The other two revocations, at BC.Game and Bets.io, are single entries.

That is the strongest argument for reading the register rather than the footer. A revocation changes a register entry the day it happens and changes a footer graphic never. And the same structural fact — one number, several brands — means a revocation can take out three rows of somebody's comparison table at once while all three pages carry on looking identical.

Three of the largest shared registrations in the library sit outside this table but show the pattern at its full size: OGL/2024/1307/0748 covers 7Bit Casino, Katsubet and Mirax under Scores55 Tech B.V.; OGL/2024/1798/1048 covers Rolletto, Goldenbet and Velobet under Santeda International B.V.; and ALSI-202508047-FI2 covers Fairspin and Weiss.bet under Sorta Group Limitada.

What this changes before you deposit

Three practical consequences follow, and none of them requires a lawyer.

The first is diversification. Splitting a bankroll across two brands is not splitting counterparty risk if the register returns one company for both. Check the holder before assuming two accounts are two exposures.

The second is the complaint route. A complaint to a licensing authority is a complaint about the holder, and it lands against every brand that holder runs. That is leverage a single-brand complaint does not have, and it is the one place where the shared registration works in the reader's favour. What each route can actually achieve is ranked on if a payout stalls.

The third is the contract. Australian law issues none of these permits and does not follow the money offshore; what binds is the terms you accepted and the company that wrote them, as set out on what the Act binds. The clauses that decide whether a balance is yours at all sit in withdrawal ceilings and in the rights the operator keeps, and both belong to the holder rather than to the brand on the tab.