DuckDice: verification in section two, and no ceiling
A section, not a clause number
In the DuckDice terms the verification rule sits in section 2, with no amount, and after reading the whole text we still lacked a figure for the payout ceiling. This is 1 of the 4 sites where the ceiling column holds an absence rather than an emptiness.
This contract differs from most of the field in 2 ways: it refers to itself differently, and it leaves one of the questions unanswered.
It cites a section, not a clause number
The other eight contracts we read work with decimal clause numbers: 11.4, 6.6, 5.4 and so on. Here the verification provision stands in section 2, cited without a decimal.
That looks like a detail and it makes tracing harder. A clause number picks out one paragraph exactly; a section can run to several pages, and two people can have two different paragraphs in mind for the same citation.
Which is why it appears that way in our table of clause numbers: we leave it as vague as the text leaves it.
What the section contains
Verification is risk-based. In place of an amount, the operator reserves the right to request documents whenever it considers this warranted.
The practical meaning is simple: the request can arrive at any amount, and it is guaranteed at none.
The ceiling we did not find
We read the text of the terms, and a figure for the payout ceiling was missing from it.
That sentence is worded deliberately. Our claim stops at the absence of a figure; it stops well short of “there is no limit” and well short of “withdrawals are unlimited”.
The difference is the whole point of the method. An unread ceiling turns into "unlimited withdrawals" the moment someone sells the gap as an advantage — and that is the commonest sleight of hand in comparisons of these sites. Three kinds of absence exist, and in tables all three look identical: a missing clause, a clause with the amount left blank, and a contract that stayed shut. That is what our rule for reading documents is about.
The operator, the mark and the marking
The company is Zentari Limitada, and the mark is from Anjouan: ALSI-202509013-FI1, with a valid status. We looked the number up in the issuer’s public register, where all the Anjouan marks stand in one place.
We also recorded a provably fair mark at the site, along with a sportsbook offering. It matters that this is our own note about the type of offering the site advertises, taken from its claim rather than from an independent examination: the mechanism itself stayed unchecked here.
The coin list runs to ten items. The game count and the provider list stayed unread here as well.
What a reader in Hungary should know
The country list is there, and Hungary is absent from it. That is the operator’s own decision rather than a Hungarian permit, and it substitutes for one about as well as a footer substitutes for a register.
This domain is missing from the Hungarian permit list. There, three website addresses appear, all three with the same permit holder, and beside the sites on that list the authority also offers the operating permit itself for download. Here that column has an empty counterpart.
If you want to compare this contract with one that answers both questions with a number, the Rocketpot page is the best counterpoint. The other eight are on the index.