One licence holder on this side, and ten permissions issued somewhere else
The Gambling Regulatory Authority licenses one operator for remote gambling in Singapore. The ten operators compared here hold permissions from two other jurisdictions — five name Curaçao, five name Anjouan — and across the wider library of 100 brands, 68 publish a number while only 53 of those numbers are distinct.
Both sides of this comparison exist here, which is unusual. Singapore issues a licence for remote gambling, and it has one holder: the Authority states on its own site that Singapore Pools (Private) Limited is the only operator it licenses to provide remote gambling services.
Every operator on this table holds a permission from somewhere else. Five name Curaçao or the Curaçao Gaming Authority; five name the Anjouan Gaming Board.
Ten permissions, none of which has any standing under Singapore law.
What a local licence connects an operator to
Not to a quality standard, and the Authority is careful about this: a licence is a permission with conditions attached rather than a certificate of safety.
What it does attach is machinery. Conditions that a local body can enforce against a local entity. An investigation route that ends somewhere reachable. Courts in the same jurisdiction as the customer. And a place inside the country's own harm-minimisation framework rather than outside it.
An offshore permission attaches to a different set of all four, in a jurisdiction the reader has never been to.
That is the whole of the structural difference, and it holds regardless of how well or badly any particular authority runs its register. A permission is a relationship between an operator and the body that issued it, and a customer is not a party to it.
What an offshore permit does give a reader
Three things, and they are worth checking for.
A named company. A register entry frequently names the legal person holding the permission, which is the entity any claim would have to be aimed at. Vave's registration was reread on 2 September 2026 and returns OGL/2024/1676/0905, held by Latcas B.V., with the status Active. Wild Fortune's Anjouan entry, by contrast, returns ALSI-202509073-FI2 with no holder named at all — which is a fact about the register rather than about the brand, and it is recorded as one.
A jurisdiction with a complaints route, however slow and however far away.
And a claim a stranger can test. A number searched in the issuing authority's own register either resolves or does not, and that check takes minutes. It is the difference between a badge in a footer and an entry in a register, and it is the reason this site records numbers and statuses instead of logos — the procedure is set out on checking an operator.
Why a number is not a brand
The most common misreading is that a licence number belongs to the website displaying it.
It belongs to a company, and a company can run many sites. Across the library of 100 operators behind this comparison, 68 publish a licence number, and the distinct numbers among them come to 53. Nine numbers cover 24 brands between them.
The extreme case is an Anjouan registration, ALSI-202508056-FI2, that appears on five brands at once: Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Winz.io and Bitkingz. Five shopfronts, five sets of colours, one permission and one counterparty.
Sixty-eight claims, fifty-three permissions.
For a reader that changes what a comparison means. Two brands can be the same company, so a dispute at one is a dispute with the other, and a permission lapsing or being withdrawn can affect several sites on the same day without any of them announcing it.
Read the holder's name in the register entry rather than the brand name on the page.
Status is a field, and it is not always Active
A register entry carries a status, and the status is the half of the check people skip.
Across the same library of 100 brands, five hold registrations recorded as revoked: BC.Game, Bets.io, Betriot, Casinoly and Zet Casino, with the last three sharing a single number. None of those five is on this table, and the point is not about them specifically. It is that a number can resolve in a register and still be the wrong answer, because resolving proves the entry exists rather than that it is live.
Numbers also come in generations. Rocketpot's 1668/JAZ is written in the style of the older master-licence arrangement rather than the current registration format used by the other Curaçao entries on this table, and a number in an older format is not automatically stale — it is a prompt to check the status field rather than the format.
So the check has three parts, not one: does the number resolve, what does the status say, and who is named as the holder.
What no permit decides
Whether an operator pays, and what it pays.
Every figure that governs a balance sits in the terms rather than in a register. The processing window, the per-period ceiling, the turnover requirement, the point at which documents are demanded, the deadline for supplying them and the consequence of missing it: all of them are clauses, and all of them are the operator's own drafting.
Three operators here publish the amount at which verification begins — Rocketpot at US$2,500 in clause 11.4, Bitcasino.io at 2,500 EUR in clause 6.6, Empire.io at 2,000 USDT in clause 5.4 — and the other seven reserve the decision to themselves.
A resolvable permit and an unpayable balance are perfectly compatible.
The reverse holds too, which keeps the check in proportion: an operator with a thin licensing story can pay every request promptly. A register entry is evidence about standing with an authority. It says nothing about a cashier, and treating it as a safety rating is the error this whole page exists to prevent.
What none of it changes about the local framework
A foreign permission has no effect on the Singapore framework, and an offshore brand using the word Singapore in its domain, its branding or its bonus copy acquires nothing by doing so.
The Authority licenses one remote operator. The framework also reaches the person placing the bet, which is unusual and is stated plainly on the law page rather than buried.
This page reports what the documents say and stops there. How a rank is earned on this site — and why legal status is reported as a fact rather than scored as a virtue — is on how we rank.
Restricted-country clauses were read for nine of these ten on 26 August 2026 and Singapore is named in none of the nine; the tenth could not be read. A list can be revised without notice, so read the clause before depositing.