Anjouan register, operator terms
DuckDice: ten coins, an Anjouan document, a clause with no figure
DuckDice invokes entry ALSI-202509013-FI1 in the Anjouan register, runs a cashier of 10 coins, and describes identity checks across the whole of section 2 without naming any amount. Three facts from three documents, and each answers a different question.
Two registers, and why the number looks different
The company behind the service is Zentari Limitada, and the number it invokes reads ALSI-202509013-FI1. That is not a Curaçao number but an Anjouan one, and the format alone shows it.
Curaçao numbers open with OGL and carry four parts divided by slashes. Anjouan numbers open with ALSI and carry three parts divided by hyphens.
Format says nothing about the quality of supervision, but it does say where to look for the entry. The Anjouan register is a public list at anjouangaming.com, in its licence register section, while the Curaçao body runs a certificate search. Two jurisdictions, two entirely different search tools and two ways of writing the same information are unpacked on the page about foreign licences.
The only number we looked up in a register ourselves is the one belonging to this site’s advertising partner. For the other nine brands we give the number, the jurisdiction and the register address, and the check stays with the reader, because it takes a minute and wants no account.
Section 2 instead of a numbered clause
The identity clause here carries no number of the 6.6 or 9.7 kind. We read it as the whole of section 2 of the terms.
That is an editorial detail with real consequences.
A numbered clause gives an address at which both sides of a dispute look at the same sentence. A reference to a whole section gives an address at which they look at a dozen sentences, and in an argument about a payout what matters is precisely which of them reads as the basis for the demand. No threshold appears in the section: documents may be demanded whenever the operator considers it warranted.
Eight of our ten write about their own judgement in this place, and two state an amount. The full comparison stands on the page about casinos without identity checks.
Ten coins, and provable fairness as a separate question
The cashier takes 10 coins, with bitcoin, ether, litecoin, bitcoin cash, dash and solana at the head of the list. That sits just above the median of eight and a half: across our set, eighteen of the thirty lists we read stop at the ninth coin or sooner.
The service also advertises a provably fair mechanism, verifiable on the player’s side.
Separating what that mechanism answers from what it does not is worth doing, because writing about crypto casinos usually merges the two. The mechanism concerns the draw of a single game result and lets a player confirm the result was not altered after the bet. It has nothing to do with a payout, with a payout deadline, or with the clause on documents — the three things disputes actually break out over.
A verifiable draw and a verifiable payout are two different promises.
What a coin count says about money in an account, and what it fails to say, is unpacked on the page about casinos that take cryptocurrency.
What we could not read at this operator
No payout limit stands in our record. Neither does a processing deadline, nor a game count, nor a supplier count.
A blank here means we did not read it, never no limit.
That distinction holds the whole table up. Were a missing figure recorded as an absent restriction, the operator that published nothing would come out best in a comparison and the operator that wrote its conditions down carefully would come out worst. That is exactly how comparison tables break, which is why a clause number stands beside every figure of ours. The method is described on the page about how we read documents.
We read the list of excluded countries on 26 August 2026 in the terms at duckdice.io/terms, and Poland was not on it.
What this means under Polish conditions
An Anjouan entry is not a Polish permit and substitutes for one in no respect. There is, besides, nobody to issue a Polish permit for an internet casino: that category falls under a state monopoly and sits outside the permit system entirely. Where the divide comes from is unpacked on the page about the lawful online casino.
A document from Anjouan answers to a body in Anjouan.
For a player in Poland one practical consequence follows: in a dispute there is no domestic authority to approach, because an operator with no Polish permit falls under no Polish supervision. Everything that can be done is done before the deposit, by reading the verification section and the country list.
We hold no account there and checked nothing with our own money. All of the above comes from the terms read on 26 August 2026 and from the public register whose address is given above.