Bitdreams repeats 71 of the 74 names and adds 145 of its own

Bitdreams reaches 71 of 74 against BitStarz, the third-highest figure in this pool, and it gets there with a restricted-territory list of 216 names. Nearly two thirds of that document has no counterpart in the BitStarz list at all, which is the part the score cannot show.

The third-highest count, and the document behind it

Bitdreams repeats 71 of the 74 countries that BitStarz names in its own restricted-territory clause. Only two operators in this pool score higher, both of them on 72, and the reading behind all of these figures was taken on 26 August 2026.

Then look at the size of the document that produced the number. The Bitdreams list runs to 216 territories. The BitStarz list runs to 74. One is roughly three times the other, and the count of 71 says nothing at all about that difference, because the measure asks a single question: how much of the BitStarz list does this operator repeat.

That is a deliberately narrow question, and this page is largely about what falls outside it.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a pale blue coat standing beside a tall grey filing cabinet, holding an open folder — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. The ten below were not picked out of a cabinet by name; they are the top of an ordering that ran over 50 records, drawn in turn from a pool of 78 that opened far enough to be scored. Where a folder stayed shut the row carries nothing to compare rather than a low mark, which is why 21 of the 50 sit outside this ten on an unread clause rather than on a measured difference.

Brazil, Cyprus and Puerto Rico

Three names make up the whole distance between 71 and 74.

Brazil is the one worth pausing on, because it is not an isolated omission. It is absent from the Bitdreams list, from the Metaspins list and from the CryptoLeo list, which makes it one of the least-repeated entries anywhere in the BitStarz set. Cyprus behaves the same way across those three documents. Puerto Rico is absent from two of the three.

None of the four documents involved explains an entry or an absence. Restricted-territory clauses are written as bare lists, and an operator that revises one does not annotate the change. So the honest description of this gap is arithmetic and nothing more: three names present in one contract and missing from the other, as both stood on the day they were read.

What each operator publishes about itself: the company named on the licence, the permit number and where it was read, and how many countries the operator excludes in its own terms. Similarity here is a count with a denominator printed beside it — BitStarz names 74 countries, and an operator's overlap is stated as a share of those 74. An operator whose own list was not read carries nothing to compare rather than a low score, because an unread list is not evidence of difference. An empty cell means the document was not read — it is not a zero, and it is not a permission.
Casino	Operator	Licence	Countries barred	Withdrawal limit	Visit
Vavepaid placement	TechOptions Group B.V.	Curaçao no number	list not read	from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8	Visit
BitStarz	Gareton B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Oshi Casino	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	224	not published
PlayAmo	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	217	not published
Bitdreams	Hollycorn N.V.	Antillephone N.V.	216	not published
7Bit Casino	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority	216	not published
Bitkingz	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	218	not published
Mirax	Scores55 Tech B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	220	not published
Slotum	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	216	not published
Metaspins	3-102-959384 SRL	Curaçao Gaming Authority	58	not published
CryptoLeo	Uno Digital Media B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Bets.io	Techno Wave Systems S.R.L.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	42	not published

A list of 216, and the 145 names nobody is comparing

Subtract the overlap and Bitdreams is left with 145 territories that appear in its list and nowhere in the BitStarz one. A document naming 216 territories is close to a list of everywhere, and it is a different kind of instrument from a list of 74.

A short list reads as a set of decisions. A list of 216 reads as a posture, with the accepted territories defined by what is left over rather than by what is written down. Two operators can arrive at a high overlap from opposite directions: one by drafting a comparable list, the other by drafting a list so long that most short lists fit inside it.

This is where a bare similarity percentage misleads. Bitdreams looks close to BitStarz on the measure, and on the specific thing the measure counts it genuinely is. On the shape of the underlying document the two are not alike, and no score built on overlap alone can carry that.

Two authorities, two companies, 30 points

The Bitdreams permit recorded on 26 August 2026 is an Antillephone N.V. licence, number 8048/JAZ2019–015, held by Hollycorn N.V. BitStarz answers to the Curaçao Gaming Authority under permit OGL/2024/165/0185, held by Gareton B.V.

Neither check pays out. Fifteen points ride on a matching licensing authority and 15 more on a shared licence holder, and Bitdreams collects nothing from either. That single fact accounts for the whole distance between its 59-point total and the 73 that leads this pool, since the two operators are otherwise scored almost identically.

It also settles a question readers ask in the other direction. Bitdreams and BitStarz are not sister brands. Different companies are named on the two permits, and the permits were issued by different bodies under different numbering schemes.

The ceiling, the verification wording and the games

Section 11 of the Bitdreams terms publishes a monthly withdrawal ceiling of €20,000. The equivalent BitStarz cell is empty, because no ceiling was recorded from the BitStarz terms on the reading date, and an empty cell here means the reading stopped rather than that the figure is zero.

On verification the two documents land in the same state. Bitdreams says identity documents may be requested at the operator's discretion and that withdrawals may be withheld until an account is fully verified. BitStarz describes proof of identity, proof of payment and proof of address, requested at its own discretion. Neither attaches a monetary trigger to any of it. Matching there earns Bitdreams the 10 points on the seventh check, and what the match records is that both contracts are equally undefined on the point.

Two smaller checks split. Bitdreams runs no sportsbook, which matches BitStarz and pays 10 points, and it operates a VIP programme, which pays another 10. It publishes no original in-house games, so those 10 points go unclaimed.

What 59 points is worth to a reader

Bitdreams finishes on 59 of 100, level with PlayAmo and Oshi Casino, behind Mirax on 73 and Metaspins on 68. Twenty-nine of its 30 available overlap points are collected. Thirty points are lost on the paperwork. Ten are lost on original games.

Read plainly: two contracts that agree closely about which territories to refuse, issued under two regulators to two unrelated companies, both vague in the same way about verification, one of them publishing a monthly ceiling the other does not. That is the entire claim. Everything a player meets after depositing sits outside these documents and outside this count.

Two comparisons make useful company. The shortest list in the pool is the mirror image of this one, a small document instead of an enormous one. Two lists of exactly 74 shows that equal length predicts nothing. The 74 names themselves are set out on the BitStarz list, the weights are on the measure, every row in order is on the alternatives table, and the shortlists open on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is Bitdreams similar to BitStarz?

On territory policy the overlap is 71 of the 74 countries BitStarz names, both documents read on 26 August 2026, and that is the third-highest count of the 29 operators here whose lists could be read. On the wider measure Bitdreams finishes on 59 points of 100, because the licence sits with a different authority and a different company from the BitStarz permit.

Which countries does BitStarz name that Bitdreams does not?

Three: Brazil, Cyprus and Puerto Rico. Everything else in the BitStarz list of 74 appears in the Bitdreams list as well. Those three are the entire gap between 71 and 74, and no reason for their absence appears in either document.

Who holds the Bitdreams licence?

Hollycorn N.V., under an Antillephone N.V. permit numbered 8048/JAZ2019-015 as recorded on 26 August 2026. BitStarz sits with Gareton B.V. under Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/165/0185. Two authorities, two companies, and 30 of the 100 points on this site turn on those two facts alone.

Does Bitdreams publish a withdrawal ceiling?

Section 11 of the Bitdreams terms sets a monthly ceiling of €20,000, read on 26 August 2026. The BitStarz cell in that column is blank, because no ceiling was recorded from the BitStarz terms on the same date. A blank cell here records that the document was not read on that point, and it is not a statement that no limit exists.