The step before the deposit
The first identity check on this route is not at the casino
Since 30 December 2024 a firm selling crypto to a Dutch resident needs an authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, and since the same date every transfer it sends carries the sender's and the recipient's details with no minimum amount. Both of those happen one step before any casino is involved.
Why a site about casinos starts one step earlier
A comparison of crypto casinos usually begins at the cashier: pick a coin, copy an address, send. That is the second step of the route, not the first.
Almost nobody arrives at that screen holding coins already. The euro has to become a coin somewhere, and for a reader with a Dutch bank account that somewhere is an exchange or a broker — a business with its own registration, its own rules about who it will serve, and its own record of what you did there. None of the ten operators compared on this site is involved in that transaction, and none of them will ever see the bank account behind it.
Which is the point. The step where a person's name is attached to this route sits before the casino, not inside it, and it is governed by rules that have nothing to do with gambling.
Who may sell a coin to a Dutch resident, and since when
Two dates settle the current position, and both are recent enough that older pages on this subject describe a system that no longer exists.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, the one usually called MiCA, brought crypto-asset service providers into a single European authorisation regime. Its rules for those providers apply from 30 December 2024, and article 59 is the operative sentence: providing crypto-asset services in the Union requires an authorisation. Custody, exchange against euro, execution of orders and the operation of a trading platform are all crypto-asset services in that sense, so a firm that sells you bitcoin for euro sits squarely inside it.
The second date is national. The regulation lets a member state give firms already operating under its old regime a transitional period of up to eighteen months. The Netherlands took a short one, and it ended on 30 June 2025. Before MiCA, a Dutch provider registered with De Nederlandsche Bank under the anti-money-laundering statute; after that date the relevant permission is the authorisation, and the register to look in is the European one kept for that purpose rather than the old national list.
For a reader, that changes one practical thing. The question "is this exchange allowed to serve me" now has a public answer, and it is a different question from anything on the rest of this site — the licence a casino names is issued by another authority in another jurisdiction and covers another activity entirely.
What the exchange records when the coin leaves
The second European instrument is the one people notice least, and it is the one that touches this route hardest.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 applies from the same day, 30 December 2024. It extends to crypto transfers the rule that has governed ordinary bank transfers for years: information about the sender and the recipient travels with the payment. Article 14 sets out what the sending provider must attach — the originator's name, the account or address identifier, and address, official document number or date and place of birth, together with the beneficiary's name and identifier.
The difference from ordinary transfers is the absence of a floor. In the older regime a transfer under a certain amount could travel with reduced information. For crypto transfers there is no such minimum: a transfer of fifteen euro carries the same obligations as a transfer of fifteen thousand.
There is also a rule for transfers to an address that no provider controls — a private wallet. Above a threshold of 1 000 euro, the provider has to establish whether the address belongs to its own customer. That provision sits in the part of the regulation dealing with self-hosted addresses; the article number is not reproduced here because this page cites the instrument and its date rather than a clause read in isolation.
The consequence is simple and worth stating plainly. Sending a coin from an exchange to a casino deposit address writes a permanent line linking a verified identity to that address, and the ledger keeps it. That is a property of the payment rules, not of the casino.
What the operators' documents say about where the coin came from
Nothing, in the clauses read for this site.
Across the ten sets of terms behind the table, no operator names an exchange, a bank or any particular funding source as required or forbidden. The subject appears only at the other end of the route, in the anti-money-laundering wording that lets an operator ask about the source of funds before releasing a payout. Those clauses are set out with their numbers on the page about the document check.
So the two ends of the route are governed by different documents with different logic. At the exchange, identification happens before the money moves and is the condition of the service. At the casino, it happens at the exit and is a right the operator keeps in reserve.
A person who has only read one of those two documents has read half of what applies to them.
What this leg costs, and why no figure for it appears in the table
The exchange charges for the purchase, then charges again to send the coin out, and the second charge is set by the venue rather than by the network.
That makes four fixed costs on a round trip, of which a casino controls at most one. The breakdown of who takes what is on the fees page, and the mechanics of what happens after the send are on the deposit page.
None of those figures belongs in the comparison table, because none of them is an operator fact. The table on this site holds what an operator published about its own service, with the clause number attached, and an exchange's price list is neither.
What this page does not claim
It names no exchange and ranks none. No exchange's terms were read for this page, no account was opened at any venue, and nothing here should be taken as a recommendation of a place to buy a coin.
It does not summarise either regulation. Both run to hundreds of articles; what is above is the small part of them that lands on this route, cited by instrument, date and — where a single article carries the point — by article number.
And it does not describe any way around either of them. The identification at the exchange is the design of the system rather than an obstacle in it, and this site has nothing to say about avoiding it. What Dutch law says about the games themselves is a separate matter, set out on the page about article 1.