Mirax vs Roobet
Mirax is the more explicit of the two and the stricter: it calls verification obligatory and states a weekly ceiling, where Roobet states neither and promises nothing.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
Mirax against Roobet, side by side
| Mirax | Roobet | |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Government of Curaçao |
| Licence no. | OGL/2024/1307/0748 | OGL/2024/687/0427 |
| Register status | Active | Not checked in the register |
| Providers | Not verified | Not published |
| Coins | Not verified | 11 |
| Stated KYC threshold | Not published | Not published |
| Withdrawal cap | EUR 10,000 | Not published |
| Since | Not verified | Not published |
Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.
Mirax is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.
Mirax's clause 7 does not describe verification as a discretionary power. It calls KYC an obligatory player verification procedure, and says the casino may require proof of identity, proof of address and proof of payment, with additional documentation at its sole discretion; a player who does not supply them cannot receive payments. Clause 8 then sets a maximum withdrawal of 10,000 euros per week.
Roobet's terms reserve rather than require. Clause 4.9 allows documents to be requested at any time at its discretion and deposits and withdrawals to be restricted until identification is complete; clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified. No maximum withdrawal is published in anything read. Read together, Mirax is the site that tells a player more and asks for more.
Obligatory against discretionary
The difference in wording is not cosmetic. An obligatory procedure applies to everyone by design; a discretionary power applies to whoever the operator chooses. A player who wants to avoid documents altogether will not prefer Mirax, and a player who wants to know in advance what will be asked for will not prefer Roobet. Neither position is better in the abstract, and a comparison that pretended otherwise would be selling something.
Mirax also names the three documents: identity, address, payment. Roobet's clauses name none, referring only to KYC documents and to identification being complete. Between an operator that lists what it wants and one that does not, the list is the more useful document even when the requirement behind it is heavier.
A weekly ceiling, and a licence number that appears twice
Clause 8 caps withdrawals at 10,000 euros per week. That is the tightest published weekly limit in this comparison — Wild.io states 100,000 US dollars a week and Bitcasino.io a million USDT — and for anyone winning meaningfully it turns a balance into a schedule. Roobet publishes no cap, which is an absent figure rather than an absent limit.
Mirax's Curacao Gaming Authority licence, OGL/2024/1307/0748, is recorded as active with a certificate link into the register. The identical number sits on KatsuBet's record in this library. That is a master-licence structure — one certificate covering more than one brand — and it means the certificate a reader opens is not specific to the site they are on. It is weak evidence about how the two brands relate and it is not proof of common ownership.
| Roobet | Mirax | |
|---|---|---|
| Verification | Discretionary, clauses 4.9 and 10.5 | Obligatory, clause 7 |
| Documents named | None named | Identity, address, payment |
| Withdrawal cap | Not published | 10,000 euros per week, clause 8 |
| Coins listed | 11 | Not read |
| Licence number unique in our library | Yes | No, also on KatsuBet |
| Register link | None held | Certificate link into the Curacao register |
Roobet read 2026-08-28. Mirax from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.
What Mirax does not publish
There is no coin list on our Mirax record and no studio roster. For a comparison against a crypto casino, the missing cashier is the more serious of the two: 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 — and Roobet publishes no studio list either, so on games neither side has anything to show.
Roobet's charges are published and Mirax's are not. Clause 9.7 applies 1% to all successful fiat deposits. Clause 10.8 applies 2% from the tenth fiat withdrawal in a rolling thirty-day period and to each one after. Clause 10.1 requires a deposit to be wagered before it can be withdrawn. No fee schedule has been read for Mirax, so its costs are unknown rather than lower.
Pros
- Clause 7 names the three documents that may be required rather than referring vaguely to KYC.
- Clause 8 states a weekly withdrawal ceiling where Roobet states none.
- Active Curacao certificate with a register link, against no register link at Roobet.
Cons
- Verification is described as obligatory rather than discretionary, so documents are the expected path.
- The 10,000 euro weekly ceiling is the tightest published limit in this comparison.
- Licence number OGL/2024/1307/0748 also appears on KatsuBet; no coin list or studio roster read.
Questions people ask
- Is verification compulsory at Mirax?
Clause 7 calls KYC an obligatory player verification procedure and says a player who does not supply proof of identity, address and payment cannot receive payments.
- How does that compare with Roobet?
Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 are discretionary rather than obligatory, but they still refuse withdrawals until identity is fully verified, and they name no documents.
- What is the withdrawal limit?
Clause 8 sets 10,000 euros per week. Roobet publishes no maximum withdrawal in anything read.
- Why does the licence number matter?
OGL/2024/1307/0748 also appears on KatsuBet's record, which points to a master-licence structure covering more than one brand. It is weak evidence and not proof of shared ownership.
- Which coins does Mirax take?
We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet's cashier prints eleven.
Mirax · alternatives to Roobet