Stake vs Roobet
Stake's licence is the checkable one, but on every field a player actually uses our record for it is empty and Roobet's is not — and on this site a brand is worth what its documents say, not what its name is.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
Stake against Roobet, side by side
| Stake | Roobet | |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Government of Curaçao |
| Licence no. | OGL/2024/1451/0918 | 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 | Not verified | Not published |
| Since | Not verified | Not published |
Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.
Stake is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.
Stake is the largest brand in this comparison and one of the least documented in our library. What we hold is a licence — Curacao Gaming Authority number OGL/2024/1451/0918, recorded as active, with a certificate link into the authority's own register — and a verification clause. There is no coin list, no studio roster, no fee schedule, no withdrawal cap, no operating company and no founding year. Those documents have not been read, which is a limit on this page rather than a claim about the operator.
Roobet's record is fuller in exactly the places Stake's is empty. Eleven coins are printed in the cashier. Three money clauses are numbered in the terms. Two companies are named with registration numbers. None of that makes Roobet the better site; it makes Roobet the site a reader can currently examine.
Two verification clauses of the same kind
Stake's clause 4.8 allows KYC documentation to be requested at any time to determine identity and location, and permits service, payment or withdrawal to be restricted until identity is sufficiently determined. Withdrawals require identity verification, and additional KYC may be required for any withdrawal.
Roobet's clause 4.9 allows documents to be requested at any time at its discretion and deposits and withdrawals to be limited until the identification process is complete; clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified. Neither states a figure. Read side by side, the two clauses are near-equivalents, and a player switching between them on this ground alone gains nothing. Stake's wording that additional KYC may be required for any withdrawal is marginally the broader of the two.
The fields where one record is empty
It is worth setting the gaps out plainly rather than glossing them, because a comparison page that quietly fills them in with reasonable assumptions is worse than useless.
| Roobet | Stake | |
|---|---|---|
| Coins listed | 11 | Not read |
| Studios named | None published | Not read |
| Fee clauses | 9.7 and 10.8 | Not read |
| Withdrawal cap | Not published | Not read |
| Operating company | Raw Entertainment B.V., reg. 157205 | Not read |
| Licence status | Not stated | Active |
Roobet read 2026-08-28 from its footer, terms and cashier. Stake from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.
The one place Stake's record is stronger
Stake's certificate link goes into the Curacao Gaming Authority's own register and its status is recorded as active. Roobet's OGL/2024/687/0427 carries no register link in our record, and when the number was put to the certificate register on 2026-08-28 it returned nothing — as did every other domain queried that day, which is why nothing is concluded from it here in either direction.
Roobet's counterweight is corporate rather than regulatory. Its footer legal line names Raw Entertainment B.V., registration 157205 at Korporaalweg 10 in Curacao, as the licence holder, and Raw Entertainment Ltd, registration HE421735 in Limassol, as the paying and operational agent — the entity a player's money actually moves through, in a different jurisdiction from the licence. That is more corporate disclosure than most brands in this set offer, and our Stake record has none of it.
On costs, Roobet is again the only one with published figures: 1% on successful fiat deposits at clause 9.7, 2% from the tenth fiat withdrawal in a rolling thirty-day period at clause 10.8, and a wagering requirement before withdrawal at clause 10.1. These are charges, not advantages — but they can be priced, and nothing comparable has been read for Stake.
Pros
- Active Curacao licence status with a certificate link into the register, where Roobet's record holds neither.
- Clause 4.8 is a numbered, citable verification clause.
- The licence number OGL/2024/1451/0918 appears on no other record in our library.
Cons
- No coin list read, so the cashier cannot be compared with Roobet's published eleven.
- No studio roster, fee schedule, withdrawal cap, operating company or founding year read.
- The verification clause is at least as broad as Roobet's, extending additional checks to any withdrawal.
Questions people ask
- What does Stake's verification clause say?
Clause 4.8 allows KYC documentation at any time to establish identity and location, permits restrictions until identity is determined, requires verification before withdrawal, and allows additional checks on any withdrawal.
- Is that lighter than Roobet's?
No. Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 cover the same ground, and neither operator attaches a figure to any of it.
- Which coins does Stake accept?
We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet publishes eleven: BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE.
- Which licence is easier to check?
Stake's. OGL/2024/1451/0918 is recorded as active with a certificate link into the Curacao register. Roobet's has no register link in our record and did not resolve when queried on 2026-08-28.
- Does Stake publish who operates the site?
No operating company sits on our record for it. Roobet names two: Raw Entertainment B.V. in Curacao and Raw Entertainment Ltd in Limassol, with registration numbers for both.
Stake · alternatives to Roobet