Rocketpot: the one contract where both gates carry a figure
Two figures and a deadline
The Rocketpot terms write an amount in 2 places: clause 11.4 gives an identity threshold of $2,500 and clause 11.5 a monthly payout ceiling of $5,000. Of the nine contracts we read, this is the only one where both questions are answered with a number.
This is the most talkative of the 10 contracts. It is worth starting here: it shows what a written rule looks like, and gives you a benchmark for the other nine.
Clause 11.4: what is asked for, and how long you get
The verification clause draws the line at $2,500. It is one of the three thresholds that could be read out of the ten sets of terms.
The clause says more than that. It names the documents requested: an identity document and a document evidencing the source of funds. And it gives a deadline for them: thirty calendar days to submit.
We found one such deadline out of nine.
The other contracts either stay silent about time, or speak so generally that the reader is left with a phrase instead of a figure. That difference matters when somebody actually has to gather documents: a bank statement can be obtained inside thirty days, whereas an unstated deadline leaves the whole exercise open-ended, since the time available stays unknown until it runs out. Proof of source of funds deserves separate attention, because it differs from proof of identity. The latter needs a document; the former needs something showing where the deposited money came from — and that is typically a good deal more work.
What this clause leaves open is what happens after the thirty days run out. A sentence of that kind is missing from it, so our text stays silent as well.
Clause 11.5: five thousand dollars a month
Five thousand dollars a month.
So the payout ceiling is the lowest of the four upper limits we read out, and also the easiest to interpret, because it runs on a calendar month rather than a rolling week. An example of why that matters: a win of ten thousand dollars takes at least two months under this contract, rather than a single transfer. That is a written rule rather than a hidden condition — and precisely for that reason it can be planned around.
The four ceilings we read out resist comparison with each other in any case: two monthly and two weekly limits stand at four sites, in three different currencies. The page collecting the ceilings goes into that in detail.
A licence mark that does not look like the others
The operator is Danneskjold Ventures B.V., and the mark stands in the older Curaçao format: 1668/JAZ.
That format occurs at this one site alone. The other four Curaçao sites publish the newer OGL-prefixed number, which has a separate address per certificate in the issuer’s register.
At this one we could not read out the field showing the status of the entry. Our claim about that field is empty, and the validity of the mark is a separate matter we say nothing about. How the three number formats can be looked up is set out on its own page.
What else can be read out, and what cannot
The coin list runs to thirteen items, the longest we read out in the field. Its practical significance is small, though: the heads of the lists look similar everywhere, and the difference lies at the tail, among the rarer instruments.
We also recorded a sportsbook offering at the site. The game count and the provider list stayed unread, so those fields are empty.
We read the country list, and Hungary is absent from it. That is the operator’s own document rather than a Hungarian official decision, and a permit is a separate thing entirely: this domain is missing from the Hungarian permit list, along with the other nine.
What this contract teaches you about the rest
Read clauses 11.4 and 11.5 here, then open any other site’s terms, and the gaps there will be obvious at once.
At six operators an authorisation stands where the identity threshold would be: they may request documents at any time. And four contracts leave the ceiling without a figure as well. The index of the ten pages separates those two groups.