How CryptoScamNET assesses exchangers
The CryptoScamNET Rating, rating tier, Verification Level, evidence coverage and review freshness are separate concepts. Every point can be explained: it has a source, an evidence status, a check date and an editorial status.
- A high rating is not a guarantee of safety
- Verification is not a guarantee of safety
- CryptoScamNET is an informational evidence-analysis platform
Contents · 13 sections
01 — How the rating is calculated
How the rating is calculated
The CryptoScamNET Rating is the sum of points across six categories, up to 100. Points are awarded only for confirmed information.
| Category | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Legal identity and owner/operator transparencyPublicly established legal entity, jurisdiction, registration number, operator details | 20 |
| Business documents and verificationDocuments reviewed by the editors; the result is published without the files themselves | 20 |
| Public transparency: contacts, domains, social channels, historyContacts, domain control, domain history, official channels and their link to the service | 15 |
| Reputation and quality of external referencesExternal sources with a URL and check date; third-party assessments ≠ a CryptoScamNET conclusion | 15 |
| Complaints and complaint-resolution behaviourEvidence quality, severity, recency, the service's response and resolution — not the number of complaints | 20 |
| Technical security and operational transparencyHTTPS, published policies (AML/KYC, terms, refunds, privacy) | 10 |
| Total | 100 |
- Every criterion has: source · evidence status · check date · editorial status · points earned · maximum.
- An unconfirmed self-declaration is not scored: the criterion shows “Not enough evidence”, not 0 points.
- “—” and “0” are different. 0 points is only ever the result of a completed assessment. An unassessed criterion is “Not enough evidence”; the total is “— / 100 · Rating pending” or “Insufficient data”. Points are never filled in.
- The calculation is deterministic: the same criterion results under the same methodology version always give the same total. AI may assist the analysis, but no model assigns the score — every point is explained by a criterion result.
Evidence coverage and publication conditions
Evidence coverage shows the share of the required evidence that has already been reviewed. It is a secondary indicator: it does not measure safety and does not raise the rating. A numeric rating is published only when the mandatory criteria are supported by evidence, the minimum evidence coverage is reached, the editorial review is complete, the methodology version is valid and the rating is approved for publication. The minimumCoverageForRating threshold is configurable and will be set after product and legal review.
How coverage is calculated: each category's weight (its maximum points) is split equally across that category's required evidence. Only reviewed evidence counts; pending, missing and self-declared evidence does not, and items that do not apply are excluded. Filled-in fields do not count by themselves.
Rating publication conditions
- Mandatory criteria supported by evidence
- Minimum evidence coverage reached · threshold is configurable
- Editorial review complete
- Valid methodology version
- Rating approved for publication
- “Rating pending” — the evidence is collected or being reviewed, but the review is not finished.
- “Insufficient data” — a mandatory criterion lacks evidence, or coverage would stay below the minimum even after the reviews in progress.
02 — What the rating means
What the rating means — and what it does not
The rating means
- how transparent a service is on the reviewed evidence: who runs it, which documents were checked, how it behaves when complaints arise;
- a result in six categories, each with a source and a check date.
The rating does not mean
- that a service is reliable or that a transfer will go through without problems;
- a recommendation to use the service;
- that the unknown is good: missing data is “Insufficient data”, not a good sign.
- A high rating is not a guarantee of safety.
- A rating tier is not a guarantee of safety.
- Verification is not a guarantee of safety.
Five separate concepts
- CryptoScamNET Rating
- a numeric 0–100 assessment across six categories.
- Rating tier
- a readable interpretation of the published score.
- Verification Level
- how deeply the service has been verified.
- Evidence coverage
- how completely the required information has been reviewed.
- Review freshness
- whether the latest review is current: “Review current”, “Data updating” or “Review outdated”.
03 — Rating tiers
Rating tiers
A rating tier is a readable interpretation of the published score. It exists only together with a numeric rating and is derived from the score using the table below; no tier is ever assigned by hand.
- Rating tier: Leader
- Points: 90–100
- Rating tier: Strong
- Points: 75–89
- Rating tier: Confident
- Points: 60–74
- Rating tier: Standard
- Points: 40–59
- Rating tier: Basic
- Points: 0–39
Without a published numeric rating there is no tier: the page shows “Rating pending” or “Insufficient data”. That is not the “Basic” tier and not 0 points.
“Leader” means a high result under the CryptoScamNET methodology. It does not mean that a service is safe, reliable or recommended. “Basic” is a lower result under the methodology — not an accusation and not a conclusion about intentions.
04 — Verification Levels
Verification Levels
The level shows what exactly was verified. It does not assess a service's honesty and does not replace case materials. A level is awarded for completed checks — not for submitting an application and not for having a domain.
- V0 · Unverified
- No meaningful verification has been completed.
- V1 · Basic verification
- Basic: control of the domain and official contacts, or individual identity elements, confirmed.
- V2 · Business verification
- Business: registration and legal documents reviewed.
- V3 · Enhanced verification
- Enhanced: owner/operator, policies, operational information and service identity also reviewed.
- V4 · Continuously monitored
- Continuously monitored: V3 plus regular full re-checks and monitoring. Not a guarantee of safety.
V4 is maintained by a full re-check — with a target of every 90 days — and by an extra re-check when serious new evidence appears. Once the re-check date has passed, the V4 badge is no longer shown as current: it reads “re-check overdue”.
05 — Cases and materials
Cases and materials
The rating is an evidence-based assessment across six categories. When a service has a published case, the detailed materials, sources and evidence statuses are on the case page; the Service Profile links to it under “Related cases”.
Cases are not turned into a label in the ratings directory: open the case page to review the materials.
06 — Evidence standards
Evidence standards
Self-declaration ≠ verified fact. Third-party assessment ≠ a CryptoScamNET conclusion. Unconfirmed ≠ false.
- Confirmed by the editors
Confirmed by the editors from a primary source
- Official source
Official source (registry, the service's official response)
- Service's own claim
The service's own claim — shown as a claim, earns no points
- Not confirmed by the editors
Not verified — not used in the rating
For example, “operating since 2017”, “we are licensed” or “10,000 clients” are the service's own claims. They earn points only once acceptable evidence supports them.
07 — External sources
External sources
External references are assessed on quality, not quantity. Each source carries its name, a link (where available), the check date, the source type and its reliability.
- Many positive reviews do not earn points automatically.
- Negative reviews do not cost points automatically.
- A third-party assessment is shown attributed to its source and never becomes a CryptoScamNET conclusion.
- A source without a name and a check date is not used in the rating.
08 — Complaints
Complaints
The number of complaints alone does not set the score: more complaints ≠ automatically a lower rating. A large service does not lose points merely because it has more reviews and complaints in absolute numbers.
Each complaint is weighed by
- Evidence quality
- Severity
- Recency
- Service response
- Resolution
- Refund / remediation
- Repeated pattern
- Unresolved status
A complaint rate (%) is not calculated without reliable data on transaction volume or the number of customers. Such a volume is never estimated or invented. Resolved cases with a refund are weighed separately from unresolved ones.
09 — Update frequency
Update frequency
Every assessment shows the date of its last review. V4 services get a full re-check with a target of every 90 days; others are re-checked when new materials arrive and by the date the editors set. Once that date has passed, the assessment is marked “re-check due” and then “review out of date” — a rating never looks permanently current.
- Review current
- Data updating
- Review outdated
Freshness statuses are informational: “Review current” — the latest review stands; “Data updating” — a new review is scheduled or in progress; “Review outdated” — the previous review is no longer considered current. None of them implies wrongdoing.
10 — Right to reply
Right to reply
A representative of the service can give an official response. It is published next to the materials and marked as the service's position.
We normally give a service 7 calendar days to respond. When verified information about a serious risk is needed sooner — for example, to warn about ongoing losses — the material may be published before that window ends, and the service's response is added when it arrives.
11 — Corrections and appeals
Corrections and appeals
Every change is kept in the history — earlier review records are never rewritten.
- Request a correctionPoint out the inaccuracy and attach supporting material.
- Provide additional evidenceNew materials are reviewed; the previous result stays in the history.
- Give an official responsePublished as the service's position next to the materials.
- Challenge a rating criterionA review of one specific criterion, citing the source.
- Appeal the ratingThe result is reconsidered by another editor.
Submissions through the website will open later; until then the procedure described here applies unchanged.
12 — Independence
Payment never affects the assessment
There is no paid rating boost in the system. Payment can never:
- increase the rating;
- raise the Verification Level without evidence;
- soften the findings of cases and investigations;
- remove complaints;
- suppress verified negative information.
If verification fees are introduced in the future, they will pay for the review work, never for its outcome.
13 — Methodology versions
Methodology versions
Every published rating keeps the methodology version that produced it. If category weights change, that is a new version — earlier records never pretend to have used it.
Current version: 1.0, since 27 October 2026.
CryptoScamNET is an informational evidence-analysis platform. A high rating or a verification badge is not a guarantee of safety or a recommendation to use a service.