Two restricted lists of exactly 74, agreeing on fewer than half

CryptoLeo names 74 territories in its restricted clause. BitStarz names 74 as well. The two lists share 48 of them, which leaves 26 names on each side with no counterpart on the other. Identical length turns out to predict nothing whatever about contents.

Two documents, both 74 names long

CryptoLeo names 74 territories in its restricted clause. BitStarz names 74 as well. Both were read on 26 August 2026, and the coincidence of length is exact.

Forty-eight of those names are shared. Twenty-six appear only in the BitStarz document and 26 only in the CryptoLeo one, which is the neatest illustration this site has produced of a simple point: two lists can be the same size and describe substantially different policies. Roughly a third of each document has no counterpart in the other.

Anyone tempted to treat list length as a proxy for list contents can stop here. It is not one.

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.

What CryptoLeo leaves out

Twenty-six BitStarz names are absent from the CryptoLeo clause, and eleven of them are European Union member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Liechtenstein and Serbia are European without being members, and Georgia sits at the edge of the region.

The remainder are spread widely: Angola, Brazil, Congo-Brazzaville, Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mauritius, Puerto Rico, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, plus the Isle of Man. Seven sub-Saharan African names in a single group, none of which CryptoLeo repeats.

The European pattern is the same one Metaspins produces, and that is worth noting because the two operators are otherwise unconnected. The names most likely to appear in a BitStarz-style list and go missing from a comparable document are European Union members, and the names most likely to be repeated are the sanctioned and heavily restricted jurisdictions that appear almost everywhere.

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

What CryptoLeo adds, and why Germany matters

The 26 names on the other side of the ledger are led by Germany, and it is the entry that carries the most weight in the whole comparison. Germany is one of the largest markets in Europe, and it is named in the CryptoLeo document and absent from the BitStarz one.

The rest run across four continents: the United Arab Emirates, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Morocco, Senegal, Botswana, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Palau, Guam and American Samoa.

Read together, the two sets of 26 describe operators drawing lines in different places. Neither document says why, and no page here will invent a reason. What a reader can take from it is that a shared list length, a shared regulator and a shared industry produce far less agreement than any of those things might suggest.

One authority, two permits, two companies

CryptoLeo holds Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/1267/0760 through Uno Digital Media B.V. BitStarz holds OGL/2024/165/0185 through Gareton B.V. under the same authority. Both were recorded as active on the reading date.

The shared authority pays 15 points. The licence-holder check pays nothing, because the two permits name unrelated companies. That split is the norm across this pool rather than a mark against CryptoLeo, and it puts a firm answer under a question people ask: these are not sister brands, and no shared corporate parent appears on either permit.

The ceiling, the verification wording, the shape of the business

Clause 7.9 of the CryptoLeo terms publishes a monthly withdrawal ceiling of 50,000 USDT. The BitStarz column here is blank, because no ceiling was recorded from the BitStarz terms on 26 August 2026, and a blank cell on this site means the document was not read on that point.

On verification the two land in the same place. CryptoLeo says verification may be carried out at a first withdrawal, that identity documents may be requested at any time, and that a withdrawal is processed only after an account is fully verified. BitStarz describes proof of identity, proof of payment and proof of address at its own discretion. Neither publishes a monetary trigger. The two match, 10 points are paid, and what is being recorded is a shared habit of leaving the point undefined.

Two further checks split. CryptoLeo runs a VIP programme, which matches and pays 10. It runs a sportsbook, so the casino-only check pays nothing, and it publishes no original in-house games, so those 10 points are unclaimed as well. Thirteen game suppliers are named in its own material.

Fifty-four points, and what the number is not

CryptoLeo finishes on 54 of 100, tenth of the ten operators ranked on this site, behind Mirax on 73, Metaspins on 68 and Bets.io on 60. Nineteen overlap points of a possible 30, 15 for the authority, 10 for the VIP programme, 10 for the verification match.

Tenth of ten is a statement about seven questions and nothing else. It compares two contracts on a single day and stops there. The library, the cashier, the pace of a payout, the way a support queue behaves at three in the morning — none of that is in these documents, none of it was measured, and a low position here should not be read as though it were.

Two neighbouring comparisons complete the set. A list of 216 names shows a high overlap produced by sheer length. The shortest list here shows the opposite strategy and a higher total. The 74 reference names are on the BitStarz list, the weights are on the measure, the full ranking is on the alternatives table, and the shortlists open on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is CryptoLeo similar to BitStarz?

Less than the matching list lengths suggest. Both documents name exactly 74 restricted territories, read on 26 August 2026, and 48 of those names appear in both. That is 48 of 74 on the overlap check, worth 19 of its 30 points, and CryptoLeo finishes on 54 points of 100, in the lower half of the ten operators ranked here.

Which countries does CryptoLeo restrict that BitStarz does not?

Twenty-six, and Germany is the most consequential of them. The rest are Afghanistan, Armenia, American Samoa, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guam, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Morocco, Palau, the Palestinian Territories, the Philippines, Senegal, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

Who holds the CryptoLeo licence?

Uno Digital Media B.V., under Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/1267/0760, recorded as active on 26 August 2026. BitStarz holds OGL/2024/165/0185 through Gareton B.V. under the same authority, so the authority check pays 15 points and the licence-holder check pays none.

Does CryptoLeo publish a withdrawal ceiling?

Clause 7.9 sets a monthly ceiling of 50,000 USDT, read on 26 August 2026. The BitStarz cell in that column is blank because no ceiling was recorded from its terms on the same date, and a blank cell records that the reading stopped rather than that no limit exists.