BitStarz vs Roobet
BitStarz has the better licence trail and a published studio roster, but its terms describe verification as an obligation rather than a possibility, and its cashier has not been read.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
BitStarz against Roobet, side by side
| BitStarz | Roobet | |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Government of Curaçao |
| Licence no. | OGL/2024/165/0185 | OGL/2024/687/0427 |
| Register status | Active | Not checked in the register |
| Providers | 62 | Not published |
| Coins | Not verified | 11 |
| Stated KYC threshold | Not published | Not published |
| Withdrawal cap | Not verified | Not published |
| Since | Not verified | Not published |
Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.
BitStarz is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.
BitStarz's terms establish KYC as an obligatory player verification procedure. The casino may require proof of identity, proof of payment and proof of address, and may request additional documentation at its sole discretion or during deposits. There is no clause number on our record for this and no document address, which weakens it as a citation, but the position itself is stated clearly enough.
Roobet reserves rather than requires. Clause 4.9 allows KYC documents to be requested at any time at its discretion, with deposits and withdrawals restricted until identification is complete; clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified. A player who wants to avoid documents will find neither site promising anything, and will find BitStarz saying so more directly.
Obligation on one side, discretion on the other
There is a real difference between a document that says verification will happen and one that says it may. BitStarz's names three specific proofs — identity, payment, address — and extends to requests during deposits. Roobet's names no documents and no stage beyond the general power in clause 4.9.
Which is preferable depends on what a reader wants from a comparison. If the priority is knowing what will be asked for, BitStarz's terms answer it. If the priority is not being asked at all, neither answers it, and the honest conclusion is that this is not a field on which switching from Roobet buys anything.
Studios published, cashier unread
BitStarz names sixty-two studios on its own pages, among them Betsoft Gaming, BGaming, Playson, Playtech, Novomatic, ELK, Endorphina, Yggdrasil and Games Global. Roobet names none anywhere it publishes; the sixty-four provider names our library holds for it are our own compilation.
| Roobet | BitStarz | |
|---|---|---|
| Verification | Discretionary, clauses 4.9 and 10.5 | Described as obligatory |
| Documents named | None named | Identity, payment, address |
| Studios named | None published | 62 |
| Coins listed | 11 | Not read |
| Licence status | Not stated | Active |
| Register link | None held | Certificate link into the Curacao register |
Roobet read 2026-08-28. BitStarz from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.
Licence, limits and charges
BitStarz holds Curacao Gaming Authority licence OGL/2024/165/0185, recorded as active with a certificate link into the authority's own register. The number appears on no other record in our library. Roobet's OGL/2024/687/0427 carries no register link at all and did not resolve when queried on 2026-08-28 — nor did any other domain queried that day, which is why the non-result is treated as unresolved.
Neither brand publishes a maximum withdrawal. Roobet's terms carry none, and no cap document has been read for BitStarz. Neither publishes a founding year. We have not read a coin list for BitStarz, so a player cannot check the cashier against Roobet's eleven — BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE.
Roobet's charges are the only quantified costs on either side: 1% on all successful fiat deposits at clause 9.7, 2% from the tenth fiat withdrawal in any rolling thirty-day period at clause 10.8, and a wagering requirement before withdrawal at clause 10.1. None of that is favourable to Roobet as an experience — it is simply the only part of this comparison where a number exists on both subjects a reader asks about.
Pros
- Sixty-two studios named on the operator's own site, against no studio list at Roobet.
- Active Curacao certificate with a register link, where Roobet's record holds neither.
- The terms name the three proofs that may be required rather than referring vaguely to KYC.
Cons
- Verification is described as obligatory, and additional documents may be requested during deposits.
- No clause number or document address on our record for the verification position.
- No coin list, fee schedule, withdrawal cap or founding year read.
Questions people ask
- Is verification compulsory at BitStarz?
Its terms establish KYC as an obligatory player verification procedure, requiring proof of identity, proof of payment and proof of address, with additional documents at its sole discretion.
- How does Roobet compare?
Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 are discretionary rather than obligatory, but still refuse withdrawals until identity is fully verified, and they name no documents at all.
- How many studios does BitStarz name?
Sixty-two on its own site. Roobet names none.
- Which coins does BitStarz take?
We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet publishes eleven coins in its cashier.
- Which licence is easier to check?
BitStarz's. OGL/2024/165/0185 is recorded as active with a certificate link into the Curacao register, and appears on no other record in our library.
BitStarz · alternatives to Roobet