Clause 20.1, read in full
Rainbet: the tightest verification clock in this table
Rainbet gives a player 72 hours to complete identity verification and gives itself up to 7 business days to analyse what arrives. Those two periods sit in the same clause, 20.1, and running them together is the sharpest asymmetry we read in these 10 contracts.
Two clocks in one clause
Clause 20.1 reserves the right, at any time, to ask for whatever documents the operator considers necessary to establish a user’s identity and location. No amount triggers it, and the same clause reserves the right before any payout.
Then come the two periods.
The player has 72 hours: if verification is not completed inside that window, the operator may restrict the service, payments, payouts and access to funds. Analysing what the player submits, by the same clause, may take the operator up to 7 business days.
Three days one way, up to nine calendar days the other.
Neither number is unusual on its own, and putting them side by side is what makes the clause worth reading. The short deadline binds the person who has to find a document, take a photograph and upload it; the long one belongs to the party reviewing it. Failure or refusal to pass the check results in confiscation of funds, in the same clause, and clause 20.2 freezes accounts that try to get past verification with forged documents.
The documents named are a government photo ID, front and back in some cases, a selfie holding it, proof of residence in the form of a recent utility bill, and a verification call. Those forms are set out across clauses 20.1, 5.2 and 8.3. How the ten operators compare on this is on the page about casinos without identity checks.
The company and the Anjouan entry
The operator is RBGAMING N.V., and the number it invokes reads ALSI-152406029-FI2, from the Anjouan Gaming Board register.
The format alone places it: Anjouan numbers open with ALSI and carry three hyphenated parts, while Curaçao numbers open with OGL and carry four parts split by slashes.
We looked up no number in a register ourselves except that of this site’s advertising partner. For Rainbet we give the number, the jurisdiction and the register, and the check is a minute’s work for anyone. What a number of either kind confirms, and what it leaves alone, is unpacked on the page about operator documents.
The coin column says “not published”, and here is why
Our table carries no coin total for Rainbet, and the reason is in the operator’s own sentence.
The homepage FAQ says the service supports bitcoin, ether, litecoin, ripple, solana, tron and binance coin, together with stablecoins including tether and USD coin. Bank transfers, cards and gift cards are named as well.
The words “stablecoins including” leave the list open at the end. An open-ended list has no total by construction, so nine named coins is what we have and a total is what we do not. Nine names are not a count of nine coins either: were they one, they would sit almost exactly in the middle of the thirty lists we did read, where the median falls at eight and a half, and a plausible-looking number is the easiest kind to print by mistake. A count and a set of names are different facts, and merging them would put a number in a table that the operator never wrote. What a coin count measures is unpacked on the page about casinos that take cryptocurrency.
What the payout section does and does not say
Clause 8.1 sets a minimum payout of 15 USD per transaction, or the equivalent, with an exception for closing an account, where the whole balance may be taken.
Clause 8.7 applies a 1x wager lock to crypto deposits, and clause 8.2 ties fees to it: there are no withdrawal commissions if the deposit is rolled over at least once, while taking one of the promotions doubles the required wagering. Clause 8.4 requires payouts to go back to the original card, bank account or method used for the deposit.
Section 8 states no processing time at all.
The homepage does carry a figure — withdrawals typically processed and sent within 5 to 15 minutes in normal conditions — and that sentence is marketing copy on a front page rather than a clause in a contract. We record it as the operator’s claim and nothing more, because we have tested no payout with our own money and a claim outside the terms binds nobody. No per-period ceiling and no instalment rule appear anywhere we read, and those fields stay blank in the sense the whole table uses: unread, never absent.
A figure on a homepage and a figure in a clause carry different weight.
The homepage names six studios after the word including and states no supplier total; a game count is printed there and stays off this page, like every other figure that describes an offering rather than a term. We read the terms on 26 August 2026, and the list of excluded countries there does not name Poland.
What this means in Poland
An Anjouan entry is not a Polish permit and cannot stand in for one, since internet casino games here belong to a state monopoly and the category sits outside the permit system altogether. Where the one lawful address comes from is unpacked on the page about the lawful online casino.
The 72-hour clock is a contractual term. Art. 107 § 2 of the Fiscal Penal Code is not, and it applies to the player regardless of how tidy or untidy an operator’s clauses happen to be. Both provisions about the player stand on the page about what the statute says.
We hold no account there, deposited nothing, and describe no payout from experience.