How does InvestorWatchdog calculate its Risk Score?

The Risk Score is a 0–100 composite score calculated from seven weighted factors: Regulatory Status (25%), Withdrawal Refusal Pattern (20%), Corporate Structure Opacity (15%), Complaint Volume & Severity (15%), Marketing Practices (10%), On-Chain Evidence (10%), and Document Authenticity (5%). It represents our editorial assessment at the time of publication.

What sources does InvestorWatchdog use to verify claims?

We use a four-tier verification hierarchy: primary documentary evidence (regulatory filings, court records, on-chain data), on-record statements from named sources, claims corroborated by two or more independent sources, and contextual background from credible published sources. Anonymous tips are treated as leads only and are never published without independent verification.

How long does an investigation typically take?

Major investigations take between four and twelve weeks from initial tip to publication. The process includes initial intelligence assessment, research and evidence gathering, right of reply to the subject, legal review for serious allegations, editorial review, and independent fact-checking.

Does InvestorWatchdog give subjects a right of reply?

Yes. Every individual and organisation that is the subject of a critical investigation is given a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication. We typically allow five working days for major investigations and 48 hours for time-sensitive reports. Responses are published in full or summarised fairly.

Methodology — How We Investigate & Score Risk

Q: Is the Risk Score a legal or financial rating?

No. The Risk Score is an editorial assessment tool, not a financial rating. It should not be used as the sole basis for any investment decision. A score of 0 does not mean a firm is safe to invest with. A high Risk Score indicates significant investigative concern — it does not constitute a legal finding of fraud.

InvestorWatchdog’s Methodology explains how we investigate financial fraud, verify the evidence behind every investigation, and calculate the Risk Score assigned to each Scam Watch investigation.

Overview

InvestorWatchdog investigations are built on documentary evidence, regulatory records, on-chain data, and verified victim testimony. We do not publish allegations that cannot be substantiated to our editorial standard.

Our investigative process typically involves three phases: initial intelligence gathering, deep-dive research and verification, and editorial review. Major investigations take between four and twelve weeks from initial tip to publication.

We publish our methodology in full so that readers, subjects, and other journalists can assess the basis of our reporting. Transparency about how we work is fundamental to our credibility.

Risk Score Methodology

The InvestorWatchdog Risk Score is a 0–100 score applied to Scam Watch investigations. It reflects how many of our seven Red Flag criteria a platform meets, based on the evidence gathered during our investigation.

Score	Risk Level
0–39	Low Risk
40–69	Medium Risk
70–100	High Risk

Important: The Risk Score is an editorial assessment tool, not a financial rating. It should not be used as the sole basis for any investment decision. A score of 0 does not mean a firm is safe to invest with — it means our investigation did not find evidence for any of the seven Red Flag criteria at time of publication.

The Seven Red Flags

Each Scam Watch investigation is assessed against seven criteria. Each confirmed flag is based on evidence gathered during our investigation and contributes equally to the overall Risk Score.

Unlicensed No valid licence or authorisation from a recognised financial regulator (FCA, SEC, ASIC, CFTC, or equivalent) for the jurisdiction(s) in which the platform solicits customers.

Regulatory Warning At least one official warning has been issued against the platform by FCA, SEC, ASIC, CFTC, or an equivalent regulator.

Withdrawal Refusal Verified reports of delayed, blocked, or fee-gated withdrawals, sourced from victim testimony, complaint databases, or direct testing where possible.

Anonymous Team Key personnel behind the platform cannot be verified through public records or company filings.

Pressure Tactics Documented use of artificial deadlines, high-pressure selling scripts, or similar coercive sales practices.

Unrealistic Returns Claims of guaranteed or unusually high investment returns.

No Verifiable Address The platform’s registered address cannot be verified, or resolves to a virtual office with no genuine operational presence.

Each flag is individually sourced and documented as part of our investigation file — we do not tick a box without an evidential basis for it, and that basis is available to subjects during the right-of-reply process.

Source Verification

Every factual claim in an InvestorWatchdog investigation must be verified to our editorial standard before publication. Our verification hierarchy is:

Primary — original documents: regulatory filings, court records, company registrations, bank statements, on-chain transaction data
Secondary — on-record statements from named sources with direct knowledge of the facts
Corroborated — claims supported by two or more independent sources, where primary documentation is unavailable
Contextual — background information from credible published sources, clearly attributed

Anonymous tips are treated as leads only. They may direct our research but are never published as facts without independent verification.

On-Chain Analysis

For crypto-related investigations, we use blockchain analytics to trace fund flows, identify wallet clusters, and analyse token distribution patterns.

Our on-chain analysis uses publicly available blockchain data and professional-grade analytics tools. We verify wallet attributions through multiple independent sources before publishing.

We clearly distinguish between confirmed on-chain facts (transaction data is public and immutable) and analytical inferences (wallet attribution, intent). Inferences are clearly labelled as such.

Regulatory Research

We check every firm we investigate against the following regulatory registers as standard:

Regulator	Register	Jurisdiction
FCA	register.fca.org.uk	UK
SEC	sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar	US
FINRA	brokercheck.finra.org	US
CFTC/NFA	nfa.futures.org/basicnet	US
ASIC	connectonline.asic.gov.au	Australia
ESMA	registers.esma.europa.eu	EU
Companies House	companieshouse.gov.uk	UK

We also check FCA Warning Lists, SEC investor alerts, ASIC warnings, CFTC RED List entries, and Interpol notices for relevant entries.

Editorial Process

Every investigation goes through a structured editorial process before publication:

Initial intelligence assessment — is there sufficient basis to investigate?
Research phase — documentary evidence gathering, source interviews, regulatory checks
Right of reply — subject contacted with allegations and given reasonable response time
Legal review — for investigations involving serious allegations
Editorial review — senior editor reviews all evidence and the draft
Fact-check — independent fact-check of all specific claims
Publication — with full evidence documentation retained on file

Limitations & Caveats

We are transparent about the limitations of our methodology:

Risk Scores reflect evidence available at time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments.
Regulatory status can change — always verify current status directly with the relevant regulator.
On-chain wallet attribution is probabilistic, not certain. We clearly label inferences.
Victim testimony is subjective. We corroborate accounts where possible but cannot verify every detail.
Our investigations focus on publicly available evidence. We may not have access to all relevant information.
InvestorWatchdog is not a law enforcement agency. Our findings are editorial assessments, not legal determinations.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is the InvestorWatchdog Risk Score calculated? The Risk Score is based on how many of our seven Red Flag criteria a platform meets during investigation — including licensing status, regulatory warnings, withdrawal complaints, and team transparency. It is an editorial assessment, not a financial rating.

What does a Risk Score of 0 mean? It means our investigation did not find evidence for any of the seven Red Flag criteria at the time of publication — not that the platform is confirmed safe to invest with.

Which regulators does InvestorWatchdog check? We check every firm against the FCA, SEC, FINRA, CFTC/NFA, ASIC, ESMA, and Companies House registers as standard, along with official warning lists from each.

How long does an investigation take? Major investigations typically take between four and twelve weeks from initial tip to publication.

Is InvestorWatchdog’s Risk Score a legal finding of fraud? No. A high Risk Score reflects significant investigative concern based on our evidence, but it is an editorial assessment, not a legal or regulatory determination. Only a court or regulator can make a legal finding of fraud.

Can a platform’s Risk Score change over time? Yes. Risk Scores reflect the evidence available at the time of publication. If a platform’s regulatory status or circumstances change, we may revisit and update an investigation — always check the “last updated” date on the article itself.

How does InvestorWatchdog verify crypto and on-chain evidence? We use publicly available blockchain data and professional-grade analytics tools to trace fund flows and identify wallet clusters, verifying attributions through multiple independent sources. We clearly label which findings are confirmed on-chain fact versus analytical inference.

Can I check a platform’s regulatory status myself? Yes — we check every firm against public registers including the FCA, SEC, FINRA, CFTC/NFA, ASIC, ESMA, and Companies House, all linked in our Regulatory Research table above. We encourage readers to verify current status directly, since it can change after our publication date.

Is InvestorWatchdog a law enforcement or regulatory body? No. InvestorWatchdog is an independent investigative publication. Our findings are editorial assessments based on publicly available evidence, not legal determinations.