Cloudbet: forty coins, and almost nothing else published

BTC, ETH, LTC, BCH, DOGE, DASH, USDT, USDC, USDP, DAI, PAXG, LINK, DOT, ADA, UNI, SOL, ALGO, AVAX, POL, SHIB, BNB, XLM, XRP, stETH, BSV, EOS, TRON, ZEC, TON, ENA, USDe, sUSDe, and a row of memecoins including BRETT, DEGEN, PONKE, TOSHI, DOGS, HMSTR, plus HBAR and TRUMP.

Several of those appear on no other list in this register — PAXG, stETH, HBAR and the memecoin block are Cloudbet-only here. For a balance held outside the top ten assets, that is a genuine practical difference rather than a marketing one.

No studio list is published, so nothing about the lobby can be checked from documents. No verification threshold. No withdrawal ceiling. The licence is Curaçao OGL/2024/328/0599 with an active register line, and the site states 2013 as its founding year — one of the two oldest here.

Thirteen years of operation is a fact about longevity, not about disclosure, and the scoring does not reward it beyond the half point for publishing a year at all.

Across the register's 30 records, Cloudbet is one of the 27 that carry both a licence authority and a licence number. Twenty-four of those 30 also return a register status, and Cloudbet's line is active. On those three checks the record sits inside the majority group rather than outside it.

Where Cloudbet stands out is the coin list. Sixteen of the thirty records publish some cashier; of those sixteen, Cloudbet's forty assets put it first. That first place among the sixteen is the widest gap between Cloudbet and the rest of the register on any single field.

A different pattern appears in the blanks. Only fifteen records publish a studio list, and Cloudbet is not one of them. Only three publish a verification figure, and Cloudbet is not one of them. Only eight publish a withdrawal cap, and Cloudbet is not one of them. In every one of the smaller, more specific disclosure groups the record is absent.

What the counts add up to is a record that is unusually detailed about what can be deposited and unusually quiet about what happens after. A reader can see forty coins, an active Curaçao line and a KYC clause, but cannot see a game provider, a threshold for document requests or a maximum withdrawal. That split is the whole pattern: first on the cashier field, absent on the operational fields that carry the next layer of detail.

Cloudbet's terms carry the Curaçao Gaming Authority as the named authority and OGL/2024/328/0599 as the number, with the register line returning Active. That is a complete set of licence identifiers, and it places Cloudbet among the 27 records that name both authority and number. What that does is associate the Cloudbet sign with a specific Curaçao licence holder.

It does not attach the number to the website itself. A licence is issued to a company, and a company can carry several signs under one number. The register shows this plainly: ALSI-202508056-FI2 appears on both Bitkingz and Winz.io, and OGL/2024/1267/0760 appears on both CryptoLeo and Nine Casino. Cloudbet's number is not shared in this register, but the shared cases are the reason a number is evidence about a holder rather than about a domain.

Gaps elsewhere in the register sharpen what Cloudbet's line does. Three brands — BetPlays, Crashino and Nitrobetting — name no authority at all, so they rest on a licence claim with no register to check. One brand, Bets.io, carries a Curaçao line OGL/2024/1178/0479 that the register returns as revoked. Cloudbet's Active status is not that, and the absence of revocation is what a reader should hold the record against.

The promotional page for Cloudbet did not carry an offer on our capture. On 28 August 2026, the capture server in the Netherlands received the message, "Unavailable in your region. Unfortunately, we don't serve players from Netherlands." The operator's own page refused the connection before any headline, wagering requirement or bonus cap could be read.

Across the whole register, six of the thirty promotional captures were geo-blocked from that same Netherlands server; Cloudbet is one of those six. Another nine never made it past a bot wall, and two failed for other reasons. The remaining thirteen were read, and among those only ten showed a headline at all. Of the ten headlines, only two carried a wagering figure and only one carried a bonus cap. A headline percentage with no wagering figure beside it is therefore the dominant pattern even when a page does open.

Cloudbet's capture adds nothing to the count of yen being named in a currency list or to the count of Japanese interfaces, because the page never loaded. The block says only that a server in the Netherlands was refused; it carries no information about Japan. What the headline left out cannot be assessed, because no headline was served.

Two blank fields concern the game lobby: studios and studio count. Studios would have named the game providers behind the casino, letting a reader check whether the lobby is populated by known or unknown software. studio count would have put a number to that list. Without either, the entire game side of Cloudbet's operation is empty on paper.

The verification figure is blank even though the record carries verification wording and clause 18.1.1. That figure would have set the threshold at which a player is asked for identity documents — a daily amount, a lifetime amount, or something else. Its absence means a reader knows KYC can be requested, but not when; the wording gives discretion without a floor or ceiling.

The withdrawal cap and its clause are both blank. The first would have stated a maximum amount per withdrawal or per period; the second would have pointed to the clause that sets it. Their absence means the operator does not publish a ceiling, which is different from confirming that no ceiling applies. Without these five fields, a reader cannot compare the practical friction of using the site — which games exist, when documents are demanded, what amount can move at once — against the longest coin list in the register.