A registration number where a name belongs
Who the other side of the contract is when a company has no name
The operator of Metaspins is recorded as 3-102-959384 SRL — a registration number with no trading name attached. Add licence number OGL/2024/1063/0437, a coin total the operator never publishes, and clause 9.7, which refers to a verification threshold and then declines to state it.
A company name that is a number
The operator field here reads 3–102–959384 SRL. That is neither a typing error nor an abbreviation: the entity appears under its own registration number, with no name of its own.
The arrangement is lawful in many jurisdictions and settles nothing by itself.
It does have a practical effect worth seeing before an account is opened. A trading brand and the other side of a contract are always two different things, but a company name can at least be remembered and searched for. A registration number with no name can be searched only in the register that issued it, and only by somebody who knows which register that is.
The name in the cashier is not the name of the counterparty.
How often a brand comes apart from a company, and how many sites can stand behind one entry, is shown on the page about operator documents.
The licence number and what it confirms
The number reads OGL/2024/1063/0437 and comes from the Curaçao Gaming Authority register. Our record shows the entry as active, and the address of the certificate search is given in the sources.
It confirms one thing: that a body in Curaçao issued a document to this entity.
It confirms no payout deadline, no limit, and nothing about how a player’s documents are treated, because those live in the terms and not in a register. Nor does it confirm anything at all against Polish law: internet casino games fell under a state monopoly in Poland, so a Polish counterpart to this number does not exist and cannot. Where that divide comes from is unpacked on the page about who holds a Polish permit.
Clause 9.7: a threshold that is mentioned but never stated
The verification clause states no amount, and it does something more interesting than simply reserving a discretion. It says identity verification is required upon gambling reaching a certain threshold, while the operator maintains discretion to verify at any time in any case.
A threshold is referred to and never named. That is the operator’s own wording, not a gap in our reading.
The consequence is peculiar. A player is told a trigger exists, told it will fire, and left unable to work out where it sits — which offers less than either a published figure or a plain statement of discretion, because it implies a rule the reader cannot check.
Deadlines, by contrast, are stated exactly. Clause 9.10 gives 30 days to comply with a verification request, or at least to acknowledge receipt of it within that time. Failure there brings suspension or permanent closure of the account, withheld payouts and confiscation of the remaining balance. Clause 9.9 adds that where verification shows the account details do not match, the account is closed or suspended immediately, winnings and bonuses are confiscated, and the remaining deposit is returned depending on the circumstances.
The comparison of all ten clauses, with their numbers wherever we could read one, stands on the page about casinos without identity checks.
No coin total, and nine coins that are not one
Our table says “not published” in the coins column, and the reason is worth spelling out.
Clause 14.12 names nine currencies — bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ether, litecoin, dogecoin, binance coin, ripple, cardano and tron — but only as the ones for which a minimum bonus deposit is set.
A bonus-eligibility list is not a deposit list. The operator may well support more, and the cashier itself sits behind a login we did not pass, so no total exists in our record. Nine named coins and an unpublished total are two different facts and we keep them apart. Why cashiers here run on coins at all is explained on the page about casinos that take cryptocurrency.
Two of the operator’s own statements that disagree
Payouts carry a contradiction the operator wrote itself, and it belongs in a transcript of clauses.
The homepage advertises safe, quick withdrawals at 0% fees, with a promotions page devoted to zero fees. Clause 12.2 of the same site says withdrawals can incur charges depending on the method selected.
Both are the operator’s own text, and they do not agree, so we record neither as a number.
Clause 12.5 adds that a payout may be divided into monthly instalments where payment method restrictions require it, without naming the amount at which that starts, and says the maximum payout could be limited depending on the method chosen, again without a figure. Clause 12.2 requires withdrawal by the same method as the deposit, and clause 11.3 narrows that further for coins: withdrawal only in the cryptocurrency used to deposit. Clause 4.2 requires deposits, rewards and NFT revenue share to be wagered at least once before a payout. A dormant account costs 10 USD under clause 13.1 once twelve months pass without activity.
Blank fields and one date
No payout ceiling stands in our data. No processing deadline stands there either, and neither does a game count or a supplier count — the homepage shows per-provider game counts without stating a total for anything.
Four blank fields are not four zeroes.
We read the terms on 26 August 2026 directly from the operator’s site, at the address given in the sources, and the list of excluded countries there does not carry Poland. No bonus amount appears, because such a figure comes from promotional material rather than from a clause anyone could check it under.
What follows for a reader in Poland
The contract is concluded with an entity whose name is a number, under the law of the jurisdiction that issued that number. A Polish supervisory body has no role here, because an operator with no Polish permit does not fall under one.
A Polish provision applies to the player, though.
Art. 107 § 2 of the Fiscal Penal Code makes taking part in a foreign game of chance on the territory of Poland a punishable act for the player, and art. 109 describes the same behaviour from another angle. Both wordings, unsummarised, stand on the page about what the statute says.
We hold no account with this operator and have checked no payout with our own money.