Terms read 26 August 2026
The highest published payout ceiling in this table
Clause 6.10 sets the upper payout limit at a million USDT a week, and clause 6.6 sets the threshold for identity papers at 2,500 EUR. Two figures from the same contract, three orders of magnitude apart.
A ceiling that barely exists
The weekly amount of a million USDT in clause 6.10 is the highest published ceiling among the ten. For a player depositing tens of euros that clause stays theoretical in practice.
Its value is real all the same, and it lies elsewhere. A ceiling written into a contract provides a measure by which something can later be said to have been promised; where no such figure exists, that measure is missing too.
At six houses in the table that place stays blank. All four published ceilings sit with their clause numbers on the page about payout limits.
The difference, then, is one of provability rather than of amount.
The period is part of the figure
A week and a month are two different measures, so comparing two amounts requires the period to be equalised first.
At this brand the period is a week. At Rocketpot it is a month, at Wild Fortune a month as well, and at Wild.io a week again. Anyone looking at the amounts without that column is comparing four different things and missing that the smallest of them is written against a period four times longer than the largest, which makes the gap between them look narrower than it is.
The period column is therefore not decoration.
A threshold in euros, the only one
Clause 6.6 sets the threshold for supplying documents at 2,500 EUR. Among the three houses that publish a threshold at all, this is the only amount written in euros; the other two stand in dollars and in USDT.
For a Croatian reader it is the only figure in the whole table written in the currency they themselves pay in. The others require conversion at a rate that moves, which makes the threshold move with it.
Why a threshold in a contract is worth more than a discretionary power is set out on the page about identity checks.
Licence and company
Licence OGL/2023/111/0069 was issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority, and its status in the register reads active. The holder is Moon Technologies B.V.
An entry in a register confirms that a licence exists and who holds it. On the handling of payouts that entry stays silent, as all of them do, which the page about foreign licences covers.
What stays blank here
The coin list was missing from the place we opened, so the cashier field stays blank. The fields on launch year, game count and supplier count are blank too.
Offer terms stayed outside this reading, here as elsewhere, for the reasons given on the page about the no-deposit bonus.
The restricted-territory list was read, and Croatia is absent from it.
How this stands under Croatian law
This brand holds no Croatian approval, exactly as the other nine do not. The Act opens one only to a commercial company with its seat in the Republic of Croatia that already holds the right to organise in a casino on premises, so this is a procedure that does not exist for a foreign company at all.
Offence liability stays with the operator and, since 2025, with the advertiser too, as the page about the fine for advertising shows.