Rakebit: the newest brand here and one of the more forthcoming

BTC, ETH, LTC, DOGE, SOL, XRP, ADA, BNB, TON, LINK, USDT, USDC, DAI, XMR and ZEC. That reaches well past the market's common denominator: TON, DAI, LINK, Monero and Zcash each appear on three or fewer published lists in this whole register.

Rakebit also describes in-house games, provably fair verification and instant withdrawals on its own site. All three are its own labels; none was tested here, and this site makes no speed claim of its own about any operator.

No studio list, no verification threshold and no withdrawal ceiling. The restricted list runs to thirteen entries, published and read, and does not name Japan.

For a brand two years old, publishing a validated licence, a founding year and a fifteen-asset cashier is more than most established names in this register manage.

The register holds thirty records. Twenty-seven of them name a licence authority, twenty-seven carry a licence number, and twenty-four record a status from the authority's register. Rakebit sits inside all three of those groups: it names Anjouan Gaming Board, carries ALSI-202602030-FI2, and its status field returns valid. On those identity fields, the record is as complete as the bulk of the register.

Coin lists exist in only sixteen of the thirty records. Rakebit's published list runs to fifteen assets, which makes it the second longest among those sixteen—one entry behind the longest cashier in the set. Yet the same record publishes no studio list at all, even though fifteen other records do, and its studio count is blank. The cashier is therefore one of the fuller ones on assets, while the games behind that cashier remain unnamed.

Verification wording appears in twenty-seven records, and Rakebit is among them, but a verification figure appears in only three and a verification clause in only seventeen. Rakebit has neither a figure nor a clause quoted; the wording sits without a numerical threshold or a defined condition. For withdrawal caps, only eight records set one out; Rakebit publishes no cap and no cap clause, so no ceiling appears anywhere in its documents.

A founding year is given in only six of the thirty records, and Rakebit states 2024, the most recent year in the set. The overall shape is mixed: this record is unusually open about its age, its licence identity and its cashier, but silent about the numerical limits and game sources that readers often need. That is the pattern this record adds to the register.

Rakebit's licence line names Anjouan Gaming Board and carries the number ALSI-202602030-FI2. The authority's register returns that number as valid. In this set of thirty records, that number is not shared with any other brand, so no other sign is shown as belonging to the same holder.

The register does contain shared numbers elsewhere. ALSI-202508056-FI2 appears against both Bitkingz and Winz.io, and OGL/2024/1267/0760 appears against CryptoLeo and Nine Casino. Those pairs show what a shared number means: a licence is issued to a company, and a company can carry several signs, so the number identifies a holder and not a website. Rakebit's unique number only tells us that no other brand in this register carries that particular number; it does not rule out other signs outside this set.

The status field is not automatic. One record in the register, held by Bets.io under a Curaçao number, reads revoked. Three records—BetPlays, Crashino and Nitrobetting—name no authority at all. Against that background, Rakebit's valid Anjouan line is a real piece of information: it says the holder's licence currently validates, but it proves nothing about the website's conduct, payout behaviour or treatment of players.

On 28 August 2026, a capture attempt against Rakebit's promotional page returned a bot wall. The headline offer, wagering requirement, bonus cap, currency list and interface language were all unread. That outcome is a fact about our access from a capture server in the Netherlands; it carries no information about Japan.

Across the register, thirty capture attempts were made. Thirteen pages were read, nine hit a bot wall like Rakebit's, six geo-blocked our server, and two failed for another reason. Of the thirteen readable pages, ten carried a headline offer, but only two of those ten published a wagering figure next to it, and just one published a bonus cap. A headline percentage without a wagering figure is therefore the common shape when a page is readable.

Because Rakebit's page was behind a bot wall, we cannot say what its headline left out. The wider capture pattern suggests that had it been read, a wagering figure would likely have been missing, but that is not a fact about Rakebit. What is certain is that the operator's own promotional page did not open to our capture server, so its offer terms remain entirely unpublished to us.

The studio list and studio count are both blank. A studio list would name the game providers whose titles sit behind Rakebit's cashier, and a count would at least signal how many there are. Fifteen other records in the register publish a studio list; Rakebit publishes none, so a reader cannot see which companies supply the games.

The verification figure and verification clause are missing. The published Terms of Use do discuss KYC—requiring documents at first withdrawal and allowing verification at any time for fraud or AML concerns—but no figure sets a threshold, and no clause is quoted. A figure would tell a reader when the requirement bites; a clause would make the condition precise. Without them, the obligation remains general wording.

The withdrawal cap and its clause are also blank. No ceiling is set on withdrawals, and no terms define whether a maximum applies at all. That leaves a reader without a way to know the upper limit on what can be taken out. A reader must go to the operator's own terms or ask the operator directly for these missing numbers.