Skip to content
Points of Match

Written and checked by Teodora VulićComparisons editor

Where the shopfronts share a back office

Five brands behind one company, two brands behind one permit number

Eighteen of the fifty rows here share a company or a permit number with another row. The largest cluster is five brands on one Anjouan number held by Novatrix SRL. The smallest is a pair. Across the wider library of a hundred operators, 68 print a permit number and only 53 of those numbers are different.

A permit is issued to a company. A brand is a shopfront. Fifty rows sit in the table on this site, and eighteen of them share a company or a number with at least one other row.

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.
CasinoOperatorLicenceCountries barredWithdrawal limitVisit
Vavepaid placementLatcas B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authoritylist not readfrom 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8Visit
BitStarzGareton B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority74not published
Oshi CasinoNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board224not published
PlayAmoNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board217not published
BitdreamsHollycorn N.V.Antillephone N.V.216not published
7Bit Casinonot publishedCuraçao Gaming Authority216not published
BitkingzNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board218not published
MiraxScores55 Tech B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority220not published
SlotumNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board216not published
MetaspinsMetaspins N.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority58not published
CryptoLeoUno Digital Media B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority74not published
Bets.ioBets Entertainment N.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority revoked42not published

The six clusters

Permit numberCompany on the entryBrands in this table
ALSI-202508056-FI2Novatrix SRLOshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Bitkingz, Winz.io
OGL/2024/1307/0748Scores55 Tech B.V.Mirax, 7Bit Casino, KatsuBet
OGL/2024/1798/1048Santeda International B.V.Goldenbet, Rolletto, Velobet
OGL/2024/1267/0760Uno Digital Media B.V.CryptoLeo, Nine Casino
OGL/2023/111/0069Moon Technologies B.V.Bitcasino.io, Livecasino.io
OGL/2023/103/0067Rabidi N.V.Betriot, Casinoly

BitStarz itself belongs to none of them. It prints OGL/2024/165/0185 and names Gareton B.V., and no other row in the fifty carries either string.

The last row of that table carries a second reading a shortlist ought to survive. The Curaçao entry against OGL/2023/103/0067 came back with the status Revoked, so both brands under it sit on the same withdrawn permission. In the wider library a third brand, Zet Casino, sits on the identical number.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a white lab coat and round glasses, holding a magnifying glass up in each paw
A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. Two glasses because every check on this page is a comparison of two published documents, never a judgement of one. Seven of them sum to 100 points, and the 15 set aside for a shared licence holder went unclaimed by all 50 rows, because Gareton B.V. appears on the BitStarz permit and on nobody else’s. That is why the top score on this page is 73 of a reachable 85 rather than 73 out of 100.

The five that answer to one company

Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Bitkingz and Winz.io all name Novatrix SRL, and the Anjouan public register returns the same number for each: one registration, one holder, five shopfronts.

Their territory clauses behave the way that arrangement predicts. The four longest run to 224, 218, 217 and 216 entries, with between 69 and 72 of the BitStarz 74 inside each — four documents that are close relatives rather than four independent judgements about a market. The two read least often are set out on their own pages: 69 of 74, and a two-week lock and 71 of 74 with four checks unpaid.

For a reader that has one practical consequence, and it is the reason this page exists. A shortlist that reads Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Bitkingz is a shortlist of one counterparty presented four times. The balance sits with the same company, the terms come out of the same drafting, and a decision taken about an account at one is taken by the people who run the others. None of the five sites says so, and no ranked list assembled from their marketing would ever show it.

The pair that closes an open question

The homepage of this site recorded a two-brand cluster and left it deliberately unresolved: Mirax printing OGL/2024/1307/0748 and naming Scores55 Tech B.V., and 7Bit Casino printing the same number with the counterparty field blank.

The register closes it. The Curaçao certificate for 7bitcasino.com states that the domain is operated by Scores55 Tech B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao with company number 162990, licensed under OGL/2024/1307/0748. The certificate for miraxcasino.com states the same company, the same company number and the same permit. So does the certificate for katsubet.com.

Three brands, one company, one number, and the blank filled by the issuing body rather than by any of the three operators.

That is how this cluster should be read generally. The operators publish shopfronts; the register publishes counterparties; and where the two disagree or one stays silent, the register is the source a stranger can check.

What clustering does to a count

There is a second effect, and it distorts numbers rather than shortlists.

Country counts on comparison sites are built by asking how many operators name a country. When four of the operators asked are one company, a country named by six looks like six separate decisions and is closer to three. The same applies to any tally built by counting operators: coin lists, studio catalogues, verification postures.

This site prints the counts as they are, with this page beside them, rather than discounting shared rows. A discount would need a rule for how much a shared company is worth, and there is no principled figure to use — two brands under one holder can run genuinely different products, and two brands under different holders can run the same one.

Visit

The scale of it beyond these fifty

Across the library of a hundred operators, 68 print a permit number. Those 68 numbers reduce to 53 distinct ones, and nine numbers account for 24 brands between them.

Five brands hold registration ALSI-202508056-FI2. Three hold OGL/2024/1307/0748, three hold OGL/2024/1798/1048, three hold OGL/2023/103/0067. The rest are pairs.

None of that is irregular, and nothing here says it is. It is simply the difference between counting shopfronts and counting the companies behind them, and the second number is always the smaller one.

What each of these operators publishes about the shelf is at sixty-two studios and sixteen lists, and what they publish at the cashier is at twenty coin lists, from forty currencies to one. What the fifty look like when the territory clauses are set against the BitStarz 74 is at the ten closest sites like BitStarz.

Questions people actually type

Which crypto casinos share a licence?
Six clusters appear among the fifty rows here. Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Bitkingz and Winz.io all name Novatrix SRL on Anjouan number ALSI-202508056-FI2. Mirax, 7Bit Casino and KatsuBet all resolve to Scores55 Tech B.V. on Curaçao number OGL/2024/1307/0748. Goldenbet, Rolletto and Velobet share OGL/2024/1798/1048 under Santeda International B.V. CryptoLeo and Nine Casino share OGL/2024/1267/0760 under Uno Digital Media B.V. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io share OGL/2023/111/0069 under Moon Technologies B.V. Betriot and Casinoly share OGL/2023/103/0067 under Rabidi N.V.
Why does a shared permit matter when choosing an alternative?
Because a shortlist of five brands can be a shortlist of one counterparty. A permit is issued to a company, and the balance, the terms and the decision to pay all sit with that company rather than with the shopfront. Anyone leaving one brand over its paperwork and picking three more from the same cluster has changed the colour scheme.
Is sharing a licence number irregular?
No. Operating several brands under one company and one permission is ordinary in this trade, and nothing on this page suggests otherwise. What is notable is only that none of the brands involved says so on its own pages, so the fact has to be recovered from a register rather than read off a site.
How common is this across the whole library?
Sixty-eight of the hundred operators in the library print a permit number, and those 68 numbers reduce to 53 distinct ones. Nine numbers carry 24 brands between them. The most extreme is the Anjouan registration ALSI-202508056-FI2, which appears against five separate brands.