What clause 18.1.1 says, and what it does not
We read Cloudbet’s terms in an archived copy on 26 August 2026. Clause 18.1.1 is the identity-check clause, and the thing worth reporting about it is negative: it names no sum. The operator reserves a risk-based check, which means the check is triggered by what your account looks like rather than by a figure you can plan around.
An earlier version of this page said Cloudbet published a daily allowance of US$2,200 before verification, and repeated the same figure as an unverified withdrawal cap. That number is gone from this site. It did not come from Cloudbet — it came from two third-party review sites, and it never appeared in the clause it was attributed to. A figure with no clause behind it is not a soft fact; it is somebody else’s guess wearing our byline, and it stayed on eleven pages here for longer than it should have.
What replaces it is duller and true: nobody, at Cloudbet or anywhere else on this list, publishes an amount you can take out before documents are asked for. The verification page sets out what a risk-based policy means for planning a withdrawal.
The licence is the strongest thing on the row
OGL/2024/328/0599, Curaçao, and the number resolves. Seven of the ten operators here have a certificate that comes back when the register is searched on their domain; Cloudbet is one of them, and it has been trading since 2013, which is roughly three times the age of the median brand on this page.
That is worth something and it is worth being precise about how little. A resolving licence number does not give a New Zealander a regulator to complain to. It means the operator holds something a regulator could take away, which is the closest thing to leverage that exists offshore. The licence page walks through the search, so you can run it rather than take our word.
Payouts, cashier and the gaps
Thirty coins, three thousand games from forty studios, and a sportsbook. Sign-up is an email address.
The 120-minute end of that window is the number to plan around rather than the 10. Cloudbet’s risk desk works European hours, so a New Zealand morning is the middle of their night: a request that clears automatically takes minutes, and a request that does not sits until somebody in another hemisphere opens it.
Two gaps, listed rather than smoothed over:
- The withdrawal cap. Not read. Cloudbet may well publish one; we have not found the clause, so this site prints nothing. The only cap on this page that carries a clause number is Wild.io’s, at US$100,000 a week under clause 9.6.
- The wagering multiple on the welcome offer. Not published. An unpublished multiple can be set after you deposit, which is reason enough to decline the bonus and play your own money.
Provably fair is one of the few labels this operator does carry: the footer of its own terms links a provably fair page alongside the house rules, so the column reads Yes. What that proves is narrow — that a published result was not altered after the bet — and it says nothing about the size of the edge, which the pokies page sets out.
From New Zealand
New Zealand banks decline card payments to gambling merchants often enough that the card rail cannot be relied on, which is why the crypto route exists at all. That route carries its own cost: two exchange spreads and two network fees, worked through on the NZD page.
Whether New Zealand appears in Cloudbet’s restricted-countries clause has not been confirmed and dated by this site, for Cloudbet or for any operator on it. Read that clause before you deposit. If your country is in it, nothing else here matters.