Plinko casino KYC: who prints a figure and who does not

Written and checked by Elin MarchettiReads operator terms and licence registers Updated 3 September 2026

The figure almost nobody prints

The question a reader arrives with is simple: how much can leave the account before someone asks for a passport. Across a hundred operators, five answer it with a number.

Two of those five are in the table on this page.

Bitcasino.io writes, at clause 6.6, that withdrawals above €2,500 or the equivalent in cryptocurrency may be subject to additional verification, and that smaller ones may be checked as the licence requires. Rocketpot writes, at clause 11.4, that withdrawals above 0.05 BTC or US$2,500 may require verification, that further checks may apply above US$2,000, and that requested documents must be supplied within 30 calendar days.

Read them side by side and neither is a ceiling under which nothing happens. Both are thresholds above which something becomes likely, printed inside a clause that also reserves the right to ask below it.

Three of the five figures are one figure

The five published thresholds in the library look like five data points and are not.

€2,500 under clause 6.6 appears three times: on Bitcasino.io, on Livecasino.io and on Sportsbet.io. The first two share the permit number OGL/2023/111/0069 and the holder Moon Technologies B.V.; the third carries its own number under the same authority. The same paragraph number carrying the same figure across three brands is a house document, not three independent disclosures.

The remaining two are Rocketpot's US$2,500 and a 2,000 USDT figure at clause 5.4 on an operator outside this table.

So the honest sentence is not "five operators publish a threshold". It is "three thresholds exist in the library, and one of them is printed on three brands". How brands and permits come apart like this is worked through on the page about permits and registers.

Eleven operators, five columns, and every column filled from the operator's own terms or from the register that issued its permit. None of these columns is about the game: the facts library behind this network has no field for games at all, so nothing here claims which titles a site carries. Two of the eleven print a verification threshold; three print a withdrawal ceiling. An empty cell means the document was not read, or the operator published nothing there. It never means zero, and it never means no limit.
Site	Permit	Before ID check	Withdrawal ceiling	Coins	Countries barred	Open
Vavepaid placement	Curaçao Gaming Authority	case by case	not read	6	list not read	Open
Vave is a paid placement and is marked as one in the table. Its row is filled from the same two sources as every other row — the register entry for its permit and its own terms — and it is not ranked, not scored against the others and not given a cell it cannot fill.
Bitcasino.io	Curaçao Gaming Authority	2,500 EUR	1,000,000 USDT a week cl. 6.10	not read	1
Rocketpot	Curacao	US$2,500	5,000 USD a month cl. 11.5	13	34
DuckDice	Anjouan Gaming Board	case by case	not read	10	16
Metaspins	Curaçao Gaming Authority	case by case	not published	8	58
Rainbet	Anjouan Gaming Board	case by case	not read	9	11
Shuffle	Curaçao Gaming Authority	case by case	not read	6	15
Wild.io	Curaçao Gaming Authority	case by case	100,000 USD a week cl. 9.6	12	45
Wolf.bet	Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros	case by case	not read	13	48
Bitsler	Curaçao Gaming Authority	case by case	not read	not read	1
Flush	Anjouan Gaming Board	not read	not read	9	list not read

Discretion is an answer, and the table prints it as one

Eight of the eleven publish no figure and are nevertheless not silent. Their terms say, with small variations, that identity documents may be requested at any time and at the operator's discretion, and that access or withdrawals may be suspended until the operator is satisfied.

Vave puts this at clause 8.7. Shuffle at 4.1. Metaspins at 9.7. Bitsler at 4.3. Rainbet at 5.2 and 8.3. DuckDice in its KYC section, Wolf.bet in its section 5, Wild.io in a policy that names no clause number at all.

That is a published position and it deserves to be read as one: the answer is "at any amount". It is less comfortable than a threshold and it is more complete, because a threshold tells you where checks become likely while discretion tells you they are available everywhere.

One of the eight is worth quoting more exactly. Metaspins writes at clause 9.7 that verification is required once gambling reaches a threshold — and does not print the threshold. That is an operator confirming a number exists and declining to name it, which is a third state again, and the reason this page distinguishes the wording rather than collapsing everything unnumbered into one bucket.

The cell that means we did not read

Flush is the eleventh row, and its verification cell says "not read".

That is not a criticism of Flush and not a claim that it has no policy. It records that no readable terms text on this point is in our data, and the network's rule is that an unread document is printed as unread rather than as "not published" — because "not published" is itself a statement about the operator's document, and making it requires having read the document.

The same rule runs through every column of the comparison table, and the full list of what it left blank is on the page about how these pages are put together.

What the check is looking for

The clauses are consistent about the categories even when they differ about amounts: proof of age, proof of identity, proof of address, and source of funds. Rocketpot adds a 30-day deadline for supplying them. Rainbet's terms mention photo identification, address confirmation, a selfie and a verification call. Bitsler notes that basic registration needs only an email, and then reserves the right to ask for the rest at any point.

Two things follow that are easy to miss.

The first is that a light registration is not a light verification policy. An account opened with an email alone can still meet a full document request before its first payout, and several of these terms are explicit that the request comes at the withdrawal rather than at the deposit.

The second is that none of these clauses mentions the game. Nothing in any of the eleven documents ties a verification request to how a board was configured, which is one of the reasons the pages about the payout row and about row count and risk keep the two subjects apart.

Where the figure stops being the binding one

A threshold decides when documents are asked for. It does not decide how much money is allowed out afterwards, and those are separate clauses with separate numbers.

Three operators of the eleven publish a withdrawal ceiling — 1,000,000 USDT a week, US$100,000 a week and US$5,000 a month — and the smallest of them sits on Rocketpot's own row: US$5,000 a month, exactly twice the US$2,500 at which its clause 11.4 makes documents likely. A reader comparing operators on the verification column alone would miss that entirely, which is why it has its own page under withdrawal ceilings.

Questions people actually type

Which of these operators publishes a verification threshold?

Two. Bitcasino.io names €2,500 in clause 6.6 of its terms, above which a withdrawal may attract additional checks. Rocketpot names US$2,500 in clause 11.4, and the same clause separately mentions 0.05 BTC and a further check above US$2,000. Both clauses also say smaller withdrawals may be checked anyway. Across the hundred operators in the facts library only five print any figure at all.

What does an empty verification cell mean?

It depends which empty it is, and the table prints two different ones. "Case by case" means the operator published a policy and that policy is discretion: documents may be requested at any point, at any amount, before any payout. "Not read" means we could not read the operator's terms on this point at all, which is a statement about our reading rather than about the operator. Neither ever means that no check will happen.

Does paying in crypto avoid the identity check?

Nothing in the eleven sets of terms we read says so. The clauses are written about the account, not about the payment rail: they let the operator ask for proof of age, proof of identity, proof of address and source of funds whenever it judges it necessary, and several of them tie the request to a withdrawal rather than to a deposit method. An account also carries an email address and a transaction history regardless of which coin funded it.

Why do three operators publish the same figure under the same clause number?

Because they are not three independent documents. €2,500 at clause 6.6 appears on Bitcasino.io, on Livecasino.io and on Sportsbet.io. The first two share a permit number and the holder company Moon Technologies B.V. So of the five published figures in the whole library, three are one house style repeated — which is worth knowing before treating five as a sample of five.