Skip to content

Chipstars vs Roobet

Chipstars is the only brand here that ties verification to cumulative deposits rather than to a withdrawal, and it names the company running the site — but almost nothing else in its record has been read.

Written by /Last checked:

Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say

Chipstars against Roobet, side by side

 ChipstarsRoobet
LicenceAnjouan Gaming BoardGovernment of Curaçao
Licence no.ALSI-202409048-FI2OGL/2024/687/0427
Register statusvalidNot checked in the register
ProvidersNot verifiedNot published
CoinsNot verified11
Stated KYC thresholdNot publishedNot published
Withdrawal capNot verifiedNot published
SinceNot verifiedNot published

Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.

Chipstars is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.

Chipstars' KYC and AML policy does something no other document in this comparison does. It ties verification to the money going in rather than the money coming out: player verification may occur at any time at the operator's discretion and must be carried out at the latest when cumulative deposits reach 2,000 euros. Withdrawals are not permitted until identification has been verified, regardless of amount.

The policy also names the company: SoftSpark Services s.r.l. Roobet names two — Raw Entertainment B.V., registration 157205 at Korporaalweg 10 in Curacao, as licence holder, and Raw Entertainment Ltd, registration HE421735 in Limassol, as the paying and operational agent. Naming the operating entity is not common in this set, and both brands do it.

A deposit trigger against a withdrawal trigger

Most verification clauses in this comparison, Roobet's included, attach to withdrawals. Chipstars' attaches to cumulative deposits, which changes what a player can plan. Under Roobet's clauses a player can deposit and play indefinitely and meet the requirement only when trying to take money out; under Chipstars' policy the requirement arrives on a running total of deposits, whether or not anything has been withdrawn.

Chipstars also states plainly that withdrawals are not permitted until identification has been verified, regardless of amount. Roobet's clause 10.5 says the same thing in different words. On that half of the rule the two are identical; the deposit trigger is the part that is unique to Chipstars, and it is a stricter arrangement rather than a looser one — but it is disclosed, which Roobet's equivalent is not, because Roobet has no equivalent to disclose.

Named companies on both sides

It is worth pausing on the fact that both records name an operating company, because most in this comparison do not. Chipstars' policy attributes the discretion to SoftSpark Services s.r.l. Roobet's footer legal line names its licence holder and, separately, the paying agent through which player money moves — an entity in a different jurisdiction from the licence, which is a disclosure most operators here omit entirely.

The comparable fields
RoobetChipstars
Verification triggerNone statedCumulative deposits of 2,000 euros
Withdrawal before verificationRefused, clause 10.5Not permitted, regardless of amount
Named companyRaw Entertainment B.V. and Raw Entertainment LtdSoftSpark Services s.r.l.
Coins listed11Not read
Studios namedNone publishedNot read
LicenceOGL/2024/687/0427, CuracaoALSI-202409048-FI2, Anjouan

Roobet read 2026-08-28 from its footer, terms and cashier. Chipstars from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.

What has not been read here

There is no coin list on our Chipstars record and no studio roster, no fee schedule, no withdrawal cap and no founding year. For a comparison against a crypto casino the missing cashier matters most: a player cannot establish in advance what they can deposit. Roobet's is printed — BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE — though Roobet publishes no studio list either.

Chipstars' Anjouan licence ALSI-202409048-FI2 is recorded as valid with the register link pointing at the Anjouan Gaming Board's public licence register, which is an independent reference. Roobet's Curacao number has none, and returned no result when queried on 2026-08-28, along with every other domain tried that day.

Only Roobet publishes charges: 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 requirement at clause 10.1 that a deposit be wagered before it can be withdrawn. Neither side publishes a maximum withdrawal.

Pros

  • A stated verification point — cumulative deposits of 2,000 euros — where Roobet states none.
  • Names the operating company, SoftSpark Services s.r.l., which most brands here do not.
  • Anjouan licence recorded as valid with a link into the board's public register.

Cons

  • The trigger is a deposit total, so verification can arrive before anything is withdrawn.
  • Withdrawals are not permitted until identification is verified, regardless of amount.
  • No coin list, studio roster, fee schedule, withdrawal cap or founding year read.

Open site

Questions people ask

When does Chipstars require verification?

Its KYC and AML policy says verification may occur at any time at the operator's discretion and must be carried out at the latest when cumulative deposits reach 2,000 euros.

Is that different from Roobet?

Yes. Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 attach to discretion and to withdrawals, with no figure and no deposit total anywhere.

Can you withdraw before verifying?

No at either site. Chipstars says withdrawals are not permitted until identification is verified regardless of amount; Roobet's clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified.

Who runs Chipstars?

Its policy names SoftSpark Services s.r.l. Roobet names Raw Entertainment B.V. in Curacao as licence holder and Raw Entertainment Ltd in Limassol as paying agent.

Which coins does Chipstars take?

We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet publishes eleven coins in its cashier.

Chipstars · alternatives to Roobet