Our methodology

1. Reports are allegations

Every entry begins as a user-submitted allegation. Publication of an entry is not a finding of wrongdoing, and the presence of a name, domain or wallet in the database does not by itself prove fraud.

2. Structured intake

The report wizard captures the incident category, platform, contact method, timeline, payment method and the identifiers involved. Consistent fields make matching possible; free text alone does not.

3. Identifier matching

Wallet addresses, domains, phone numbers, emails and social handles are normalised and compared across cases. When independent reports share identifiers, the entry is escalated to a pattern rather than remaining an isolated claim.

4. Evidence review

Uploaded evidence is reviewed by staff where a case is assigned. Evidence is private by default; anything that appears publicly is anonymised and stripped of personal details.

5. Status labels

• User submitted. A single report has been received. Nothing has been corroborated.
• Under review. Staff are examining the report and the evidence attached to it.
• Multiple reports. Independent reports share at least one identifier, such as a wallet or domain.
• Evidence reviewed. Supporting documentation has been examined by staff.
• Disputed. The subject of the report has contested it; the dispute is recorded on the entry.
• Resolved. The matter has been closed, withdrawn or corrected.

6. Disputes and corrections

Any business or individual named in an entry may contest it via contact. Contested entries are labelled as disputed while reviewed. Entries found to be inaccurate are corrected or removed, and reports made in bad faith are removed and the account actioned.

7. What we deliberately exclude

• Recovery service promotion of any kind.
• Personal identifying information about reporters.
• Unredacted documents, account numbers or credentials.
• Ranking or scoring that implies a guaranteed judgement of guilt.