What a 120 free spins no deposit offer actually costs an Australian player

Every “120 free spins, no deposit” headline aimed at an Australian reader in 2026 describes the same transaction in different costumes: an offshore operator hands you 120 spins on a pokie, keeps the upside for itself, and asks you to send real money through a channel the Australian regulator cannot reach if something goes wrong. The offer is real. The product it sells is not. And the difference between those two facts is the one the marketing pages do not draw.

This page was written against data current as of 18 October 2026, with each licence claim and ACMA action verified against the register published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Inducements: how the 120 free spins offer is actually constructed

An “inducement” is the regulator’s word, not the operator’s. Under Australian law the term covers anything a gambling service offers a player for signing up, depositing, or continuing to play — free spins, deposit matches, cashback, “free bets”. The ACMA has spent years chasing exactly this category of promotion because the line between advertising an illegal product and luring a customer onto one is, in practice, the same line. So when a search result offers you 120 free spins for nothing, the offer is the product, and the product is what the regulator has been writing letters about since 2017.

Strip the marketing language and the offer is straightforward. You register an account. The site credits 120 free rounds on a nominated pokie, usually one of the well-known offshore staples — Book of Dead, Wolf Gold, Big Bass Bonanza, the Gates of Olympus line. Each spin is locked to a small fixed stake, often A$0.10 to A$0.20. Any winnings flow into a bonus balance rather than your cash balance. To convert that bonus balance into something you can actually withdraw, the site applies a wagering requirement — a multiplier that says how many times you must turn the bonus over before a withdrawal unlocks. The most common multipliers in the offshore market sit between 35x and 50x. Some operators set 20x. A few go higher.

Worth pausing on the numbers. A bonus of, say, A$24 from 120 free spins at A$0.20 each, multiplied by a 40x wagering requirement, demands A$960 of bets before the bonus cashes out — and that is the cost the marketing line “120 free spins” does not name. The 120 spins themselves are the front door. The wagering is the back room.

Two more terms govern what happens when you finally clear the requirement. A maximum cashout cap limits the amount you can withdraw from bonus-derived winnings; A$100 caps are common, A$200 less so, no cap rarer. A maximum bet rule restricts the size of any single wager while the bonus is active, often at A$5. Both terms exist to protect the operator’s margin on the offer, and both can void your bonus entirely if breached. Every offshore site sets them; almost none tell you about them on the landing page.

The honest summary, before any operator is named: a 120 free spins no-deposit offer in Australia in 2026 is a bonus whose headline value is the 120 spins, whose real price is the wagering turnover, and whose downside is the loss of local protection if anything goes wrong on the way to a withdrawal.

The landscape: eleven offshore brands the ACMA has formally warned

Eleven brands sit behind the bulk of the 120 free spins marketing aimed at Australian readers in 2026. None of them is licensed in Australia. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has issued formal warnings against every one of them, naming the corporate entity behind the brand and the date of the action. What follows is not a ranking and not a recommendation — it is a record, in the regulator’s own chronology, of who has been told to stop offering what you are being asked to play.

A reader will notice the column “Subject support” is mostly empty, and that emptiness is the page’s own point. Three of the eleven have any independent record at all in the listings that the ACMA, AUSTRAC and BetStop keep; the rest do not. Subject support, here, is whether a third-party register names the same brand for the same kind of product. It is not whether the site pays its players, whether the bonus clears cleanly, or whether the wagering multiple is fair — those questions have no public answer for any of the eleven, because no Australian regulator has jurisdiction over them and the offshore licence they display sits in a jurisdiction the reader cannot petition. The honest reading of that blank column is not silence, it is the absence of the protection the column would otherwise document.

RocketPlay

RocketPlay has been warned twice. The ACMA wrote to Dama N.V. about a basket of Dama brands including RocketPlay in May 2022, then wrote to Pulsup Ltd specifically about RocketPlay in March 2026. Two warnings, four years apart, two different corporate envelopes around the same front-of-house product. The operator the search result leads you to in 2026 is, by the regulator’s own chronology, a brand that has been told twice that offering online casino games and online pokies to a person physically in Australia is a contravention of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

RocketPlay’s “Subject support” column is filled on listings-only terms. Third-party listings name it; the ACMA’s own register names it. What they do not name is a payout record, a complaint history, or a recourse path if a withdrawal stalls. The verdict is the part the column cannot write for you: a brand with two warnings on the regulator’s file is not a candidate for “low risk” on any honest reading.

Level Up Casino

Level Up came in with the same Dama N.V. basket as RocketPlay in May 2022 — six Dama brands, one letter, one operator. Beyond that single formal warning there is no further public ACMA action against Level Up by name, which is a thinner record than RocketPlay’s and therefore a different kind of risk: thinner paper trail, same regulatory ceiling.

The listings-only entry under Subject support refers to payment-method mentions rather than any game-level endorsement. Level Up has no public Australian complaints body, no local dispute resolution, and no slot of its own whose RTP or volatility is independently published. If you compare Level Up to a brand with a wider warning history, the only honest comparison is that Level Up’s record is shorter, which is a thinner risk, not a smaller one.

Woo Casino

The ACMA wrote to Dama N.V. about Woo Casino in March 2025. Woo is the third brand from Dama in this list, after RocketPlay and Level Up. The corporate envelope being the same operator three times over is itself a signal worth weighing: a single operator has been told, by name, three separate times across four years that this product is prohibited for Australian customers.

Subject support is no-data. There is no independent listing for Woo in the registers this page cross-checks. The verdict sits where the column sits: a brand with regulator-confirmed warnings and no third-party documentation of what a player actually experiences. That is the worst ratio on the page.

Spirit Casino

Spirit Casino picked up its Dama N.V. warning in May 2025, two months after Woo. Two Dama warnings, two months apart, on the same corporate operator. By this point the regulator’s pattern with Dama is no longer a single letter that needs to be read carefully; it is a series of them.

Subject support is no-data, and the same logic applies. The cleanest sentence on this brand is the shortest one: an offer with no public record outside the regulator’s file is, for an Australian reader, the offer with the least outside scrutiny.

National Casino

National Casino was warned through Consolutetish S.R.L. in July 2025. Subject support is listings-only, but it is a thicker listings-only than some — the ACMA’s own register names it alongside Bizzo, and AUSTRAC and BetStop hold separate entries against the same brand. The betstop.gov.au listing in particular is worth noting: BetStop is the National Self-Exclusion Register, and a brand whose operator is named on it is one a self-excluded Australian could have asked the system to block.

National Casino is the case where a one-line summary almost writes itself — a brand the regulator has named, that a self-excluded Australian could have asked to be excluded from, that still markets a 120 free spins offer to Australian readers. The cost in that sentence is not monetary.

Bizzo Casino

Bizzo was warned twice. The first warning, in 2022, went to TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V. The second, in July 2025, went to Consolutetish S.R.L. Two operators, four letters, the same front-of-house brand. The 2022 warning is the older of any brand in this list; the 2025 warning sits inside the same round as National Casino’s, suggesting the regulator treated them as a single compliance problem.

Subject support is listings-only. The verdict has to be that Bizzo’s regulatory history is the most layered in the list, which is the worst possible argument for “low risk” and the strongest possible argument for “read the fine print very carefully before depositing anything you cannot afford to lose”.

Ignition Casino

Ignition was warned through Bamboo Media in July 2025. Bamboo Media is a separate operator envelope from the Dama cluster; the warning is the only ACMA action on the regulator’s record against Ignition Casino by name.

Subject support is no-data. The point this column makes by being empty is the same one it makes for Woo and Spirit, but it makes it on a brand whose regulator file is one warning deep rather than three. A thinner warning file is not a recommendation; it is simply less information for the reader to weigh. The verdict on Ignition is closer to “less known” than to “safer”, and those are not the same thing.

Instant Casino

Instant Casino came under warning in February 2025 through EOD Code SRL. The warning predates most of the others in this list by several months; the first formal action of the ACMA’s 2025 round on this brand was the one that opened the year.

Subject support is listings-only, and again the PayID entry is worth noting. PayID, the New Payments Platform identifier, names the account holder before the transfer is sent. A brand that markets 120 free spins no deposit to Australians while asking for an Australian deposit through PayID sits at the precise intersection the platform operator has publicly warned about. The point is not that Instant Casino is a scam; it is that the payments stack an Australian player would use is built to flag the situation.

Jackbit

Jackbit was warned through Ryker B.V. in April 2026 — the most recent ACMA action in this list at the time of writing. Subject support is no-data. Jackbit is also the most recent warning in the chronology, which is the kind of detail that matters because a brand warned four months ago is a brand whose operator is still being told to stop.

The verdict is straightforward: newest warning, thinnest paper trail, no listings outside the regulator’s file. If a reader is looking for the most recent reason to read the offer carefully before depositing, it is Jackbit’s.

Casino Intense

Casino Intense was warned through Sterplay Holding Ltd in April 2025. Subject support is listings-only, and it is the thickest listings-only column on the page: AUSTRAC, BetStop and Gambling Insider all name the brand independently of the ACMA. The AUSTRAC entry in particular matters because AUSTRAC’s remit is anti-money-laundering compliance, and a brand whose operator has surfaced in that register is one the financial-crime side of Australian enforcement has had reason to look at.

The verdict on Casino Intense is unusual for this list: it is the brand with the most third-party paperwork around it, and it is still the brand with no Australian licence to lose if the paperwork goes wrong. The reader who values outside scrutiny gets the most of it from Casino Intense; the reader who wants Australian recourse still gets none.

Sky Crown

Sky Crown was warned through Hollycorn N.V. in September 2022. The Hollycorn warning also named Blue Leo, a sister brand that does not appear in this list. Subject support is no-data; Sky Crown has no entry in the third-party registers this page cross-checks.

The 2022 warning is the oldest single action on the page, and the verdict is the part the column cannot say for the reader. A brand with a four-year-old warning and no listings since is a brand whose enforcement file has gone quiet — not because the problem has gone away, but because the regulator has not needed to write again. That is a thin kind of reassurance, and a reader should weigh it accordingly.

Fundamentals: what a 120 free spins offer actually is

A 120 free spins offer is, at its heart, a marketing budget deployed as a credit. The operator is paying you in slot-machine rounds rather than in cash because it controls the rounds. Each spin runs at a stake it has chosen, on a game it has chosen, with a result the player cannot influence. The 120 rounds cost the operator a known, capped amount — the spin value, multiplied by 120, multiplied by the game’s RTP, with a generous margin on top. The headline “120 free spins” is the spending; the wagering requirement is the recovery.

Three things distinguish one 120 free spins offer from another. The first is the spin value, which sets the gross stake of the 120 rounds. A 120-spin offer at A$0.10 per spin is a A$12 marketing budget; the same offer at A$0.20 is a A$24 one. The second is the game — most operators pin free-spin offers to one or two specific titles, which limits how much the player can compare. The third is the wagering requirement on the resulting bonus, which determines how much of the bonus cash is actually withdrawable after the playthrough.

None of those three numbers is what the marketing page leads with. The marketing page leads with the spin count. The reader should weigh the spin value, the game’s RTP, and the wagering requirement together, in that order, before reading the spin count at all. Doing so is what separates the offer’s headline from the offer’s cost.

The geography of this offer in Australia is unusually stark. There is no licensed Australian product that issues 120 free spins on a real-money online pokie for signing up. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as amended in 2017 and tightened in 2023, prohibits online casino games and online pokies to anyone in Australia; no state or territory issues a licence for them. The free-spin features that exist on legal land-based machines in pubs and clubs are a different product entirely, triggered inside a session on a physical machine and not transferable to an online account. An Australian reader who clicks on a “120 free spins” offer is therefore clicking on an offer that cannot come from a licensed Australian operator. The brand behind it is offshore by definition.

The reader’s practical question is therefore not “is this site reputable” but “is this site reputable enough that I am willing to take the risk the regulator cannot insure me against”. The page that pretends the second question is the same as the first is the page that costs an Australian reader the most.

Prohibition: the law that decides whether the offer can exist

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 is the operative statute. It makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies, or in-play betting to a person physically in Australia. The 2017 amendments strengthened the Act; the 2023 amendments extended credit-card and credit-product bans to licensed online wagering services; the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026, with advertising and inducement measures to commence on 1 January 2027. The law is in motion, and the motion is in one direction.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority does the enforcement. The ACMA investigates complaints, issues formal warnings, and directs Australian internet service providers to block identified illegal sites. The first blocking request under the regime was issued in November 2019. As of June 2026, the regulator had asked ISPs to block a cumulative total of 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites, and more than 230 unlicensed gambling services had left the Australian market since the 2017 strengthening. In a single round reported on 26 June 2026, the ACMA asked ISPs to block 12 more sites — 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino.

The blocking rate, against the running total and the date of the first blocking request, gives a band. Between November 2019 and the June 2026 report, the cumulative count moved from zero to 1,751 blocked sites and affiliate pages, which is roughly 269 per year, or about 22 to 23 per month across the full period. The rate has not been flat: it has picked up as the ACMA’s blocking regime has matured, and the most recent rounds list a dozen or more sites at a time. A reader who treats the band as roughly 20 to 30 blocked sites a month, with the actual figure in any given month varying widely, is closer to the truth than a reader who treats the cumulative figure as a steady drumbeat.

The point of the band is not the arithmetic. The point is what it costs a player to read it. Each blocked site is, by the regulator’s own determination, a site that should not have been offering the product you were about to deposit into. A brand whose name appears on the list is a brand the regulator has said, in writing, is operating outside Australian law.

The minimum age for any gambling activity in Australia is 18. The individual player is not prosecuted under the IGA — the Act targets the provider. But the offshore site that has been blocked once can be blocked again, with a balance still on it, and the player has no Australian complaints body to petition if a withdrawal is refused. That asymmetry is what the offshore licence the operator displays does not replace. The licence the offshore site shows is a licence issued by another jurisdiction, and the recourse it offers runs through that jurisdiction’s processes, not Australia’s.

The Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission regulates 52 of Australia’s online bookmakers — Sportsbet, Bet365, Ladbrokes among them — under Territory licences taken for tax reasons. The commission has no full-time staff and meets once a month in Darwin. Its job is to regulate wagering on races and sport placed before the event, which is what is licensable in Australia. Online casino and online pokies are not on its schedule, and no other state or territory regulator schedules them either.

The cost to the player: what an inducement really buys

The marketing word is “free”. The marketing line is “no deposit required”. The reader should treat both as descriptions of the front door and not of the room behind it.

The first cost is the wagering turnover. A bonus of A$24, cleared at 40x, is A$960 of bets before a withdrawal unlocks. Against an average online pokie RTP of around 96%, the expected loss on A$960 of bets is roughly A$38.40. That is the bonus’s real price — not the headline A$24, and not the A$0.20 × 120 the front door advertises. The offer is “free” in the same way a borrowed drill is “free”: the drill costs nothing, the time costs what you spend using it, and the wear on the drill belongs to the lender.

The second cost is the time. The arithmetic differs by reader, but the order of magnitude does not. A$960 of turnover at A$0.20 per spin is 4,800 spins. At a five-second interval between spins — the practical pace on a phone — that is 24,000 seconds, or about 6.7 hours of continuous play. The reader who treats the offer as a five-minute amusement is the reader who has not done the multiplication yet.

The third cost is the cap. Maximum cashout rules limit what the cleared bonus is worth once the wagering is done; A$100 is a common ceiling. A bonus that produced A$140 in cleared cash on a true 96% RTP game, capped at A$100, returns the difference to the house. The reader who expected the A$140 is the reader who has not read the cap.

The fourth cost is the regulatory one, and it is the one the marketing pages never name. If the offshore site refuses a withdrawal, the player has no Australian complaints body to contact. The Australian-licensed alternative — sports and race wagering under the Northern Territory regime, lotteries and keno — has complaints processes. The offshore casino does not. The reader’s expected recourse against a misbehaving operator is therefore a function of the operator’s own goodwill, mediated by the offshore licence the operator displays, with the ACMA’s blocking power as the only Australian tool in the frame.

The fifth cost is the simplest to write and the hardest to absorb. The estimate above is a statistical average over many spins under stated assumptions. It is not a guarantee for any individual player. Some players will clear the bonus with a profit; most will not. The bonus exists because most do not.

A reader who reads the cost list as “five reasons not to take the offer” is reading it as a polemic. A reader who reads it as “five numbers an Australian should know before clicking deposit” is reading it as the page intended.

Responsible gambling: where to get help

If the thought of a 120 free spins offer has started to feel automatic, Gambling Help Online runs a free, confidential service around the clock. The National Gambling Helpline is 1800 858 858, free from any Australian phone, twenty-four hours a day. Chat is available through Gambling Help Online’s website. None of these services ask for a name or a card; the conversations are confidential and the helpline does not share data with operators or with banks.

BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, has been live since August 2023. It binds Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services — sports, racing, keno, lotteries — to honour a player’s request to be excluded for a chosen period. It does not bind offshore casinos. A self-excluded Australian who clicks onto an offshore 120 free spins offer is operating outside the protection the register was set up to give. That limitation is not a flaw in the register; it is the boundary of what Australian law can enforce against operators it does not licence.

The honest framing is that the responsible-gambling tools sit on the licensed side of the line, and the 120 free spins offer sits on the other. A reader who wants the protection of those tools is, by definition, the reader who should not be on the other side of the line.

Payments: how the deposit actually moves

Every payment method an Australian reader considers for a 120 free spins deposit has a feature that makes the transaction legible in a way the offshore marketing page never explains. The most important feature of PayID, the New Payments Platform’s account-identifier service, is that it shows the name of the account holder before the transfer is sent. Australian Payments Plus has publicly stated that being asked to transfer money to a PayID on an illegal gambling site almost certainly means a scam site. An offer that asks for a PayID deposit is, in other words, an offer whose payments stack is built to flag itself.

Osko transfers between participating Australian banks arrive in under a minute, twenty-four hours a day, including weekends, whether addressed to a BSB and account number or to a PayID. Over 100 Australian financial institutions offer PayID-based instant transfers. By April 2025, more than 25 million PayID identifiers had been registered on the platform. The New Payments Platform itself became accessible to the public on 13 February 2018 and is owned by New Payments Platform Australia Ltd, a non-profit whose thirteen shareholders include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the country’s major banks.

BPAY has operated in Australia since 1997. It is available in the online banking of over 140 banks and financial institutions and offered by over 95,000 businesses. BPAY is run by Australian Payments Plus, the same operator as PayID and Osko, and is owned equally through Cardlink Services Limited by ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac. As a bill-payment service it sits inside online banking rather than as a peer-to-peer transfer — the payer enters a Biller Code and a Customer Reference Number from the bill — which makes it a slower fit for a casino deposit but a more traceable one.

The credit-card ban under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, in force since 11 June 2024, prohibits licensed Australian online wagering services from accepting credit cards and credit-related products; the same rules extend to linked digital wallets where the underlying card is a credit product. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s July 2025 review proposes removing surcharges on eftpos, Mastercard and Visa transactions and explicitly leaves American Express outside the scope of the surcharge ban. By the end of 2025, Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay transactions collectively accounted for around 45% of all card payments in Australia by number.

The major banks offer gambling blocks on the card side, with caveats worth understanding. Westpac’s gambling block refuses authorisation of transactions registered under the merchant category code for betting and casino gambling on eligible personal credit and debit cards. ANZ’s gambling transaction block, activated in the ANZ app, also blocks gambling transactions made through a digital wallet such as Apple Pay on an eligible card; once turned on, removing it requires a 48-hour waiting period, and the bank warns that not all gambling transactions will be blocked and some non-gambling transactions might be blocked in error. Commonwealth Bank lets customers apply a gambling lock to eligible cards via the CommBank app; the bank states it cannot guarantee all gambling-related purchases will be stopped. Apple does not charge fees to consumers for using Apple Pay in stores, online or in apps; transaction limits and PIN requirements are set by the card issuer or merchant, not by Apple.

AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report rule requires reporting of transfers of A$10,000 or more, and applies only to physical cash; ordinary electronic bank transfers are not subject to that per-transaction reporting requirement, regardless of the amount sent. The rule does not exempt an offshore casino deposit from anti-money-laundering scrutiny; it clarifies what AUSTRAC will hear about automatically and what it must be told about separately.

The reader’s practical question is which of these rails the offshore 120 free spins offer accepts. If the answer is a credit card, the operator is asking an Australian to do something the licensed Australian side is banned from accepting. If the answer is crypto, the operator is operating outside the credit-card ban by design. If the answer is PayID, the operator is using the rail whose platform operator has publicly warned about exactly this use case.

Where this leaves the offer

The 120 free spins no-deposit offer is a real promotion on a product the regulator has spent seven years trying to block from Australian readers. The offer’s headline is the spin count; its real cost is the wagering turnover, the time, the cap, the regulatory asymmetry and the loss of recourse if the withdrawal stalls. None of those five costs is on the landing page. All of them are on this one.

The brands behind the offer are not a short list. Eleven of them have been the subject of ACMA formal warnings, and the warnings span four years and at least six separate corporate operators. The brands do not compete on Australian protection because none of them can offer it. They compete on bonus size, on wagering multiples, on maximum cashout caps, on the appearance of reliability — and on the absence of an Australian regulator with the standing to call them to account.

A reader who wants a 120 free spins no-deposit offer in Australia in 2026 will find one. What this page is for is to make sure the reader finds it with the cost list in hand, the ACMA register open in another tab, and a clear sense of which side of the line they are standing on.

Frequently asked questions

Can a licensed Australian site legally hand out 120 free spins with no deposit?

No. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 prohibits online casino games and online pokies to anyone in Australia, and no state or territory issues a licence for them. Any 120 free spins no-deposit offer aimed at an Australian reader comes from an offshore operator, which means no Australian licence backs the offer and no Australian complaints body can hear a complaint about it.

How would 120 free spins on an offshore pokies site actually be paid out?

Winnings from the spins go into a bonus balance. That balance is subject to a wagering requirement — typically a 35x to 50x multiplier — and sometimes to a maximum cashout cap. Once the requirement is cleared and the cap respected, a withdrawal can be requested, usually through a bank transfer or a crypto route. Withdrawals to an Australian bank can take days; withdrawals in crypto depend on the chain. The whole route runs outside Australian consumer protection law.

What wagering requirement usually applies before 120 free spins can be cashed out?

The most common offshore multipliers sit between 35x and 50x. A 20x offer is unusually player-friendly; 60x and above is unusually harsh. The multiplier applies to the bonus amount credited from the free spins, not to the deposit (because there is no deposit), and the playthrough must be completed before any withdrawal unlocks. Maximum bet rules during the bonus period, often A$5, are typical and can void the bonus if breached.

Is a 120 free spins offer the same thing as the free-spin feature inside a pub pokie?

No. Free-spin features inside Australian pub and club pokies are triggered inside a session on a physical machine, are paid as credits on that machine, and are governed by state and territory gaming machine regulations. A 120 free spins no-deposit offer is an online promotion from an offshore operator that registers you for an account, credits spins on a nominated online pokie, and applies a wagering requirement to anything you win. The two products are different in form, in law and in who regulates them.

Why do so many offshore sites promote 120 free spins specifically to Australians?

Because Australians are a known market for offshore casino games and online pokies, and the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 blocks licensed local competition. H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 report estimates Australians lose about A$3.9 billion a year to illegal gambling sites, and the share of gambling going through legal channels fell from 74% in 2021 to 64%. The “120 free spins” headline is a marketing budget aimed at the spend the licensed Australian side cannot legally compete for.

Does the same law that bans online casino games also cover free-spin sign-up offers?

Yes. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 prohibits the provision of online casino games and online pokies to a person in Australia; a free-spin sign-up offer is a promotion of those games, which is what the regulator’s enforcement has focused on since 2017. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026, with advertising and inducement measures to commence on 1 January 2027. The framework is tightening, not loosening.