Gambling sites like Stake, sorted by the permit each one publishes

One issuing authority behind almost every name in the set

The first thing the paperwork shows is how little separates these brands at the top. Every permit in this table that carries a number carries it from the same body: the Curaçao Gaming Authority, in its current numbering format.

That includes the brand a reader is usually leaving. Stake.com holds OGL/2024/1451/0918, and the company on the entry is Medium Rare N.V. So a reader moving from that brand to Shuffle, Cloudbet, Duelbits, MyStake, TrustDice or BetFury is not moving to a different supervisory regime. The letterhead above all of them is the same one. Where a page in this cluster presents its shortlist as a step up in oversight, the permits underneath the shortlist say the step was sideways.

Nine numbers put to the register, and two answers nobody advertises

Nine of the twelve rows print a number. Each was submitted to the issuing register on 26 August 2026, and the register answered.

Seven answered Active: Stake.com at OGL/2024/1451/0918, Shuffle at OGL/2024/1337/0628, Cloudbet at OGL/2024/328/0599, Duelbits at OGL/2024/1507/0838, MyStake at OGL/2024/250/0115, TrustDice at OGL/2024/664/0280, BetFury at OGL/2024/1494/0942.

Two answered Revoked. BC.Game prints OGL/2023/118/0060 and the register returned Revoked against it. Bets.io prints OGL/2024/1178/0479 and the register returned Revoked against that one too. Both brands were reachable and both display their number; the entry behind the number is what came back in that state, on that date, from the body that issued it.

One detail inside the numbers is worth noticing without being oversold. Eight of the nine carry 2024 in the second field of the reference; one carries 2023, and it is BC.Game's. That is a difference in what the numbers say about themselves, nothing more — a reference is not a date of issue and nobody here has read the file behind it. It is recorded because the single oldest-looking reference in the set is also one of the two that came back Revoked, and a reader comparing footers has no way of seeing either fact from a footer.

That pairing is the reason a permit number gets checked rather than transcribed. A number on a footer proves that a number was typed into a footer. Only the register says what the number is doing now, and two of nine is not a rounding error in a set of twelve.

Three rows that print no number at all

Roobet and Rollbit publish no permit number that this reading has found, and their licence cells are therefore empty in every column of that group — no issuing body, no number, no register answer.

The third row without a number is the sponsored one, and it is stated here because the rule cuts the same way when it cuts against the paid placement. Vave names Curaçao and prints no permit number. On the single measure this page is built around, that is the weakest entry among the twelve, and the placement does not soften it.

An empty licence cell is not an accusation. It records that this reading found nothing to put in the cell, which for a reader weighing gambling sites like Stake is a different sort of problem from a permit that came back Revoked: one is a document that could not be located, the other is a document that answered.

The company on the permit is not the brand on the screen

Seven of the twelve rows print the company standing behind the brand: Medium Rare N.V. for Stake.com, Natural Nine B.V. for Shuffle, Halcyon Super Holdings B.V. for Cloudbet, Liquid Entertainment N.V. for Duelbits, Techno Wave Systems S.R.L. for Bets.io, Universe B Games B.V. for BetFury, and TechOptions Group B.V. for the sponsored row.

Five rows print none this reading could establish: BC.Game, Roobet, Rollbit, MyStake and TrustDice.

The company name is the part of the paperwork readers skip and lawyers start with. A contract binds the company, not the logo. Money is held by the company. A permit is issued to the company. When a brand changes hands, the name on the screen may not move at all while the company underneath it does, and the only place that shows is the entry. Anyone deciding between these names on trust rather than on games should know which of them will tell you who they are.

The clause this page cannot quote, and will not invent

A reader asking about regulated gambling sites is nearly always asking a downstream question: if a payout is refused, who hears the complaint?

The answer lives in a clause naming an adjudicator or a dispute forum, and that clause has not been opened for any of the twelve operators here. Not one number, not one named body. The column is empty across the whole table.

That could be filled with a plausible sentence about how disputes usually work under this kind of permit. It is not, because a sentence about how something usually works is not a clause number and does not bind anybody. The gap is printed instead, along with the rule that produced it: the reading order behind every figure here puts terms, verification, cashier and register in that sequence, and a document nobody opened produces a blank rather than an estimate.

A permit answers about the operator; a statute answers about you

The most expensive error in this subject is to read a permit as permission for the reader. It is not addressed to the reader at all.

A permit is a licence granted to a company by an issuing body in the place that issues it, and it describes the relationship between those two parties. The territorial clause in the operator's terms is a separate thing again: a commercial decision about whom the company will deal with, rewritten whenever it suits, and running to one country at Stake.com, two at Cloudbet, fifteen at Shuffle and forty-two at Bets.io on 26 August 2026. Neither document is the law where a reader lives, which has a different author, a different address, and no presence on these pages.

The counts that come out of those clauses run country by country: the United Kingdom carries the heaviest European figure at twenty-nine of the thirty-eight schedules read, while Ireland is printed by none of them. Two neighbouring markets, and one clause type produces opposite answers.

Legit and trusted are not fields in any document

Neither word appears as a column here, and neither can. There is no register of trustworthiness and no clause number for legitimacy. What exists is a permit with a state attached, a company with a name, a schedule with a length and a date, and a verification clause with a number — 4.8 at Stake.com, 4.1 at Shuffle, 18.1.1 at Cloudbet, 5 at Bets.io with 30 calendar days to supply documents.

A reader who wanted trust and gets seven Active permits, two Revoked ones, three blanks and twelve unopened dispute clauses has been handed something narrower than trust and considerably more useful: the state of the paperwork on a stated date, with the addresses to check it against. Where the same brands are weighed on payout mechanics instead, the betting side of the same table carries the clause numbers that govern money leaving.

Every permit number above, with its register answer and its reading date, sits in the table on the index behind these pages, and the territorial counts continue at Germany.

The same twelve rows sorted on a different field produce a different shortlist. Crypto sites like Stake sorts them on what the balance is denominated in, which is the question the paperwork above cannot answer.