Three addressees, and only the first one holds the balance

Before it is a dispute, check whether it is a clause

A payout that has not arrived is not automatically a refusal. On this table, four operators publish a ceiling that can hold a large withdrawal back entirely lawfully under their own terms, and a fifth publishes something that looks like a delay but is not.

Four published ceilings sit on this table: 5,000 USD a month at Rocketpot (clause 11.5), 100,000 USD a week at Wild.io (clause 9.6), 15,000 EUR a month at Wild Fortune (clause 11.8), and 1,000,000 USDT a week at Bitcasino.io (clause 6.10).

Vave publishes no ceiling and instead states, at clause 8.8, that any amount over 50,000 USDT gets paid out in equal parts, spread across up to thirty days. The total does not shrink; its shape changes.

A payout held against a published ceiling is a schedule, not a refusal.

The identity clause is the other common explanation. Three operators state the figure at which documents are demanded — US$2,500 at clause 11.4, 2,500 EUR at clause 6.6, 2,000 USDT at clause 5.4 — and seven reserve the request to their own judgement, with Vave's clause 8.7 allowing it before any payout and giving fourteen days to respond. All ten clauses, and both published response deadlines, are laid out on when the identity check starts.

Matching the event against those clauses first changes the conversation. A message that quotes a clause number is a different message from one that does not, and it is answerable.

The second addressee answers for a number, not for the money

This table splits down the middle by regulator too: five sit under the Curaçao Gaming Authority, five under the Anjouan Gaming Board, and both authorities run a register anyone can query.

What the register answers is narrow and genuinely useful: whether that number is real, who the holding company is, and what status attaches to it.

What it does not answer is whether a particular account will be paid. Whether an issuing authority accepts complaints from players, and by what procedure, is not a field this desk has read, and an unread procedure does not get written up here as a step.

The register is still worth opening, for a reason that shows up precisely in disputes. Across the hundred brands behind this comparison, sixty-eight publish a licence number but there are only fifty-three distinct numbers among them, because nine numbers cover twenty-four brands between them. A registration is issued to a company; a brand is a sign over a door. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io both resolve to the same licence, OGL/2023/111/0069, whose holder is Moon Technologies B.V. One Anjouan number, ALSI-202508056-FI2, covers five separate brands under Novatrix SRL.

A dispute with one sign is a dispute with the company behind all of them.

Register lookups also catch the thing a footer badge never will. Five brands in the hundred display a number that resolves to a revoked entry, and three of those five sit on one number. None of them is on this table, but the check that finds them is the same check, and it is described step by step on checking an operator.

The third addressee, and the process that is not available here

Singapore licenses one operator for remote gambling, Singapore Pools, and every brand on this table is offshore of that. There is no local licence behind any of them, which means there is no local licensing condition to complain under and no regulator with authority over the account.

The Gambling Control Act 2022 gives the Gambling Regulatory Authority its powers, but since 1 January 2025 it has actually been the Singapore Police Force blocking remote gambling services that operate without a licence, blocking their advertising, and blocking the payments that reach them. Those are enforcement powers directed at services and payment flows. They are not a recovery mechanism for an individual balance, and they were never designed as one.

The Act also reaches the person placing the bet rather than only the operator. That is stated plainly by the Authority, and it is the reason this page describes the framework as written and stops there. Nothing in it should be read as advice about whether to play; the statute is set out in full on the law page.

The National Council on Problem Gambling runs a help line, and it does so whether or not a site is licensed.

What survives afterwards is what was written down

The part of this that a reader controls is the record. Four items are worth capturing as they happen: the date a request or a demand for documents arrived, the exact documents supplied, the clause number the operator cited, and the channel each message travelled through.

A reply that cites no clause is guidance, not an answer.

Deadlines deserve their own note. Where a response period is published, it constrains both sides and can be quoted back. Where none is published, the length of an acceptable wait is defined after the fact, by the party doing the waiting-out.

Currency belongs in the record too. The figures on this table are written in US dollars, euro and USDT, no clause among them states when a conversion rate is struck, and not one of the fourteen published ceilings across the hundred brands is denominated in Singapore dollars. What that does to a number the reader thought they understood is worked through on the unit question.

What this page does not offer

This desk has never opened an account with any of these ten, deposited a cent with them, or waited on a payout of any size. There is no recovery rate here, no success statistic and no account of how any operator behaved, because producing any of those would require cases this site does not have.

What it offers is a map: which of three parties can act, which clause is likely to explain a delay, and which document to open first.

The rest is the operator's own paper, and reading it before the money moves remains the only step in this sequence that is entirely under the reader's control. How each row of the table was assembled, and what the empty cells mean, is on how we rank.