Metaspins: there is a clause on withdrawal limits, but no figure in it
The third kind of absence
In the Metaspins terms, clause 12.5 covers withdrawal limits but carries no amount, while clause 9.7 leaves verification to discretion. Of the 3 possible kinds of absence this is the rarest, and the easiest to misread.
Of the 10 sites, this is the one where the payout ceiling column holds a third thing: something between an emptiness and a figure.
Clause 12.5: a regulated place, left blank
The terms contain a clause on withdrawal limits, 12.5. It carries a rule and leaves the amount blank.
That is how we record it: we read out the clause number and stopped there, because the amount is missing from the clause.
This is the sharpest example of why asking whether a limit exists falls short. A regulated place stands in the contract, left blank — so the operator supplies the content when the moment comes.
Three kinds of absence exist in this field, and in most tables all three look identical. One: the clause is there and the amount is missing — the present case. Two: we read the whole contract through and the ceiling clause was absent. Three: the text stayed shut to us. Anyone cramming those three into one empty cell is melting three different statements into one, and that is what our methodology page is about.
Clause 9.7: verification turns on discretion
The verification clause leaves the amount out as well. It uses a risk-based formulation, meaning the operator decides when documents are requested.
So this contract leaves both gates without a figure. Anyone who wants to know in advance how much can be withdrawn before a document request, and at what pace, will leave this document with both questions open.
This counts as a deliberate rule rather than a flaw or a hidden condition. It is written down — it is simply other than what the reader is looking for. The operator-by-operator table of the two gates makes that difference visible at a glance.
The operator and the mark
The company name is 3–102–959384 SRL, and the mark is from Curaçao: OGL/2024/1063/0437, with an active status in the issuer’s register.
The company name itself is notable: a registration number with letters appended, rather than a brand. That signifies little in itself — the mark can be looked up, which is the point — but it shows why company name and brand name are worth keeping apart.
What else can be read out
The coin list runs to eight items, the middle of the seven lists we read out. The gap between six and thirteen is settled at the tail of the list anyway: bitcoin and ether are everywhere, and the difference lies among the rarer instruments.
We also recorded a sportsbook offering and a provably fair mark. The latter is our own note about the type of offering, taken from the site’s claim rather than from an independent examination.
The game count and the provider list stayed unread here, as at nine of the other sites.
The Hungarian side
We read the country list, and Hungary is absent from it. This address is missing from the Hungarian permit list, which holds three website addresses, and the two are separate questions.
If you want to compare this contract with a more talkative one, Rocketpot’s clauses 11.4 and 11.5 are the other end of the field. The index of the ten pages holds the cases in between.