Rainbet: a licence that validates and both lists published

Nine assets: BTC, ETH, SOL, LTC, XRP, BNB, TRX, USDC and USDT — the common denominator of this market with nothing unusual on it. Thirty-three studios are named.

A restricted-territory list of eleven entries is published and was read; Japan is not among them, which is why the brand is in this register at all.

Rainbet describes in-house games and provably fair verification on its own site. Both are its own labels.

No verification threshold, no withdrawal ceiling and no founding year. Three of the ten checks go unanswered, which is a better result than most of this table achieves.

The register holds thirty records. Twenty-seven of them name a licensing authority and twenty-seven give a licence number; twenty-four also carry a register status. Rainbet sits inside all three of those groups, which places it in the majority that answer the core licence fields rather than leaving them open.

Where the register splits is on the lists. Sixteen records publish a coin list, and Rainbet's nine coins put it eighth of those sixteen. Fifteen publish a studio list, and its thirty-three studios put it eleventh of fifteen. It is therefore in the smaller group for both lists, but not at the bottom of either.

Four fields are blank for Rainbet: founding year, verification threshold, withdrawal cap and the clause that would set that cap. Across the thirty, six publish a founding year, three publish a verification figure and eight publish a withdrawal cap. Rainbet answers the licence line and publishes verification wording, as do many others, but it leaves the quantitative limits and the founding year open, which is the most common shape in this table.

A licence is issued to a company, and a company can carry more than one sign. The register demonstrates this with two shared numbers: one Anjouan number appears against both Bitkingz and Winz.io, and one Curaçao number appears against both CryptoLeo and Nine Casino. A number shared in that way identifies a holder, not a website.

Rainbet's own Anjouan number is not shared elsewhere in this register, so the line points to a single holder here. The authority's validation endpoint returns it as valid, but that is a statement about the register entry, not about the website's terms or conduct. A valid status does not speak to the rest of what the operator publishes.

Three brands in the register name no licensing authority at all, which leaves the reader with no register to check. Rainbet is not in that group. The register also contains one revoked line under a different authority, and in that case the revocation is the single most important fact on the page. For Rainbet, the comparable fact is that the line returns valid.

The capture attempt from the Netherlands on 28 August 2026 met a bot wall. Rainbet's promotional page therefore returned no headline, no wagering figure and no bonus cap to us. That is a fact about our server's access; it carries no information about Japan, and it says nothing about what the page shows to other visitors.

For the register as a whole, thirteen of thirty promotional pages were read. Nine hit bot walls, six were geo-blocked from the capture server, and two failed for other reasons. Rainbet's bot wall is the single largest category of failure.

Among the ten headlines that were read, only two carried a wagering figure beside the percentage and only one carried a bonus cap. A headline percentage without a wagering figure is an incomplete offer, and that is the finding the register supports. Rainbet's own headline could not be checked, so no such finding is asserted about it here.

Four fields on this record are blank. The founding year is not published, so the reader cannot tell how long the brand has operated. The verification figure is not published, so there is no threshold at which documents are requested; the wording says only that verification may happen at any time.

No withdrawal cap is published, and no clause number is given, so the record carries neither a ceiling nor a citation. A withdrawal cap would set an upper bound on a single withdrawal; without it, the published documents simply do not answer that question. The same absence applies to the verification figure: the clauses exist, but a numeric trigger does not appear.

These gaps are not unique to Rainbet. In this register, twenty-four records do not publish a founding year, twenty-seven do not publish a verification figure and twenty-two do not publish a withdrawal cap. A reader left with this record is therefore seeing the same absence that most of the table shows, but the comparison does not fill the gaps; it only makes them visible.