The whole contract, not the payout section
A published threshold with clause 3.13 sitting next to it
Bitcasino.io states the sum at which documents are demanded: 2,500 EUR in clause 6.6. The same document carries clause 3.13, which allows the account to be reviewed at random with no reason at all, and clause 6.10, which spreads a large request across weekly instalments. Three clauses, one payout.
The company, the number, and a second brand under it
The operator is Moon Technologies B.V., and the Curaçao number reads OGL/2023/111/0069. Our record shows the entry as active.
That same number serves a second brand: Livecasino.io.
This is no abuse, merely the ordinary consequence of a register recording a company rather than a trading name. Across the hundred-brand set, 52 distinct numbers stand behind the 67 brands that quote one at all, and nine entries serve several sites apiece. How that is counted, and what a number fails to confirm, is unpacked on the page about operator documents.
We did not look this brand’s number up in the register ourselves. We did that only for the advertising partner of this site, where we had an interest in resting our own claim on the issuing body’s entry. The register address is public and the check takes a minute.
Clause 6.6: an amount that settles nothing
The verification clause states a threshold. The terms reserve additional checks on payouts exceeding 2,500 EUR, or the equivalent in cryptocurrencies.
In the same sentence, though, the operator reserves the right to verify smaller payouts too.
The threshold is therefore not a boundary below which documents are certainly unnecessary. It is the amount above which the procedure is announced. The distinction looks subtle until a particular payout is involved: an announcement grants predictability one way, and the reservation takes it back the other.
The documents required are listed in clauses 5 and 6.5: valid photographic identification, proof of address, a copy of the payment card, and a document confirming the player owns the payment instrument used. No deadline for supplying them appears in the terms, in the anti-money-laundering policy or in the help centre. A blank here means we did not find one, never that no deadline exists. Who in this ten names an amount and who writes about judgement is set out on the page about casinos without identity checks.
Clause 3.13: a check that needs no reason
This is the provision that makes reading the whole document worthwhile rather than the payout section alone. The operator reserves the right to run random account reviews, called Account Health Checks in the text.
The terms say outright that these checks are carried out at random and need rest on no specific trigger or existing suspicion.
For the duration of such a review, access to the account, gameplay features and the ability to deposit or withdraw may be temporarily restricted. Which means a payout can be held here without the threshold in clause 6.6 being crossed and without anything happening on the player’s side at all.
A threshold in one clause and randomness in another describe the same payout.
The consequences of failing to supply documents are spread further still. Clause 6.5 allows a payout to be blocked or delayed until documents satisfy the operator. Clause 3.10 allows the account to be blocked or closed if the information supplied turns out to be false or misleading. The anti-money-laundering policy adds that where due diligence cannot be completed the business relationship is suspended, and that on termination retained customer funds are held in a seized funds account and declared in a suspicious activity report.
Clause 6.10 is not a payout limit
In many compilations the figure of a million USDT a week lands in a column headed payout limit. Read whole, the clause turns out to be a different construction.
The terms publish no payout ceiling at all.
Clause 6.10 says that in the event of a large withdrawal request the operator may elect to process no more than a million USDT, or the equivalent in other currencies, per week until the full amount is settled. That is a settlement schedule rather than a ceiling: the whole sum stays owed, it merely leaves in instalments. The point at which a request becomes large is itself named by no figure.
The difference matters after a win. A limit cuts off whatever exceeds it. A schedule spreads everything across time and lengthens the period during which every other clause still applies, the one about random reviews included.
Deadlines, wagering, and two things the document omits
The three working days in clause 6.1 apply to payouts in state currencies only, counted from the moment a request is approved. No processing time for a payout in cryptocurrency appears anywhere in the terms, and the service is a crypto casino.
Three days therefore cover the part of the cashier this site sees least of.
Two wagering conditions stand beside them. Clause 6.4 reserves the right to require the deposit to be played through once before a payout request is accepted. Clause 6.8 raises that to five times where the operator suspects the account is being used to pass funds through. The minimum payout is referred out to the help centre by clause 6.2, whose table we did not read in full. A password change, meanwhile, triggers a forty-eight-hour hold on payouts.
Twelve coins, and a thirteenth on another page
The operator names twelve supported cryptocurrencies in its help article about supported coins: bitcoin, ether, litecoin, tether, tron, ripple, cardano, dogecoin, binance coin, USD coin, polygon and TON. The deposit-limits table on its payment methods page names a thirteenth, SHIB, which the article does not.
The discrepancy is the operator’s, not ours.
We count twelve, because that is what the document explicitly describing supported coins says. We record that a second document from the same operator says otherwise, because a reader checking this will see both figures and deserves to know where the difference comes from. A game count is printed on the homepage and stays off this page, and no supplier total is published at all despite the site running an index of them; neither figure is a term, and neither belongs in a transcript of clauses. What a coin count says, and what it does not, is unpacked on the page about casinos that take cryptocurrency.
We read the list of excluded countries in the terms and Poland is not on it. The operator’s documents were read on 2 September 2026, directly from its own site.
What this means for a reader in Poland
A Curaçao number is not a Polish permit and cannot become one, because internet casino games fell under a state monopoly here. Everything in clauses 3.13, 6.6 and 6.10 belongs to a contract concluded under foreign law, and in a dispute no domestic authority will settle the matter for a player.
Two documents answer two different questions.
The terms say how the operator intends to settle a payout. Art. 107 § 2 of the Fiscal Penal Code says that taking part in a foreign game of chance on Polish territory is itself a punishable act for the player, and it takes no interest in a clause number or the size of a threshold. The wording of both provisions about the player stands on the page about what the statute says.
We hold no account there, have deposited nothing, and write about no payout speed from experience.