Supplier Red Flags & Warning Signs

Threat Assessment & Warning Intelligence

Threat Level Assessment

The research peptide marketplace contains significant fraud, misrepresentation, and safety hazards. This intelligence report identifies critical warning signs that indicate a supplier poses immediate risk to your research integrity, financial security, or safety. Treat this as tactical intelligence: any supplier displaying Critical Red Flags should be considered compromised and avoided entirely.

1. Critical Red Flags: Immediate Disqualification

THREAT LEVEL: CRITICAL - Do Not Engage

No Third-Party Testing or COAs

Threat Assessment: Suppliers who refuse to provide Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from independent laboratories are selling unknown substances. Without verified testing, you have zero confirmation of identity, purity, or safety.

What You'll See:

Claims of "99% purity" without supporting documentation
"COA available upon request" that never materializes
Internal testing only with no lab name or accreditation
Generic PDF certificates with no batch-specific data
Refusal to provide testing when directly requested

Reality Check: Legitimate suppliers provide batch-specific COAs from accredited laboratories like Colmaric, Janoshik, or similar third-party facilities. If they can't or won't provide this documentation, they're selling blind—and so are you buying blind.

Action Required: Immediate disqualification. No exceptions.

Fake or Manipulated Testing Data

Threat Assessment: Fraudulent documentation indicates deliberate deception and organized fraud operation.

Warning Signs:

COAs with suspiciously perfect results (100.0% purity across all peptides)
Identical test dates across different batches or products
Laboratory logos or letterhead that don't match official lab formatting
Testing facilities that don't exist or can't be verified online
Chromatography graphs that appear edited or artificially generated
Missing critical information: batch numbers, test dates, technician signatures
COA file metadata showing recent creation dates for "old" test results

Intelligence Note: Several suppliers have been caught using identical COAs for different batches, photoshopping existing certificates, or creating entirely fabricated lab reports. Some operations have been sophisticated enough to create fake laboratory websites to support their fraud.

Verification Protocol:

Contact the testing laboratory directly to verify report authenticity
Check batch numbers match between product labels and COAs
Verify the laboratory is accredited and actually performs peptide testing
Look for inconsistencies in formatting, logos, or technical terminology

Action Required: Immediate disqualification. Report to payment processors and community databases.

Impossible Purity Claims

Threat Assessment: Claims of 100% purity or "pharmaceutical grade" for research peptides indicate fundamental lack of knowledge or deliberate misrepresentation.

Scientific Reality: Research-grade peptides typically range from 95-99% purity. Claiming exactly 100.0% purity is scientifically implausible due to:

Natural degradation during synthesis and storage
Presence of TFA salts and counter-ions
Peptide-related impurities and deletions
Detection limits of analytical equipment (typically ±0.5-1%)

Marketing Red Flags:

"100% pure guaranteed"
"Pharmaceutical grade" (legal/regulatory term inapplicable to research compounds)
"Medical grade" or "clinical grade" for research-only products
"Pure beyond testing limits"
Claims of purity higher than any legitimate manufacturer

Action Required: Immediate disqualification. Scientific illiteracy or intentional fraud—neither acceptable.

Anonymous Operations

Threat Assessment: Suppliers operating without verifiable business information are preparing for disappearance.

Anonymity Indicators:

No physical business address (or only a PO Box)
No registered business name or entity verification
Contact only via Telegram, WhatsApp, or encrypted messaging
Email addresses from free providers (Gmail, ProtonMail, etc.)
WHOIS privacy protection hiding domain registration
No listed business registration or incorporation documents
Phone numbers that go to voicemail or don't work

Intelligence Assessment: Legitimate suppliers operate transparently with verifiable business entities, physical locations, and professional contact systems. Anonymity enables exit scams—taking orders and payments before vanishing without fulfillment.

Action Required: Immediate disqualification. Cannot pursue recourse against entities that don't legally exist.

Cryptocurrency-Only Payment

Threat Assessment: Requiring cryptocurrency payment eliminates all buyer protection and payment dispute mechanisms.

Why This Matters:

Zero chargeback rights or payment disputes
Irreversible transactions with no intermediary protection
Common requirement for exit scam operations
Eliminates credit card company oversight
Makes fraud investigation extremely difficult

Legitimate Context: Some established suppliers accept cryptocurrency as an option alongside credit cards or other methods. The red flag is cryptocurrency as the only payment method, particularly when combined with other warning signs.

High-Risk Payment Indicators:

Bitcoin/crypto only, no traditional payment options
Requests for payment to personal wallet addresses
Pressure to pay via cryptocurrency for "discounts"
Western Union, MoneyGram, or similar non-reversible transfers
Gift cards or prepaid debit cards
Direct bank transfers to foreign accounts

Action Required: Critical warning sign. Acceptable only for established suppliers with strong reputation and additional payment options available.

Extreme Low Pricing

Threat Assessment: Pricing dramatically below market rate indicates counterfeit products, bait-and-switch tactics, or exit scam preparation.

Economic Reality: Peptide synthesis, testing, and handling have established cost floors. Suppliers offering prices 50-70% below market are either:

Selling counterfeit or substitute compounds
Skipping quality testing entirely
Operating exit scams to collect payments before disappearing
Using contaminated or degraded inventory
Conducting bait-and-switch (advertise cheap, deliver nothing)

Pricing Intelligence:

BPC-157 5mg: Market range $25-45; Red flag: $10-15
TB-500 5mg: Market range $30-55; Red flag: $15-20
Semaglutide 5mg: Market range $90-140; Red flag: $40-60
CJC-1295: Market range $20-35; Red flag: $8-12

Bait Tactics:

"Limited time" prices dramatically below competitors
"Grand opening" sales at impossible margins
Prices that decrease as you add more items (pyramid indicators)
"Bulk discounts" that make products essentially free

Action Required: Immediate suspicion. Cross-reference with testing, business verification, and community intelligence before considering purchase.

2. Major Concerns: Serious Issues Requiring Investigation

THREAT LEVEL: HIGH - Proceed With Extreme Caution

Inconsistent or Missing Batch Numbers

Warning Assessment: Inability to track specific batches to specific tests indicates poor quality control or deliberate obfuscation.

What to Look For:

Product vials with no batch number printed or labeled
Batch numbers on COAs that don't match product labels
Generic batch codes like "BATCH001" across multiple products
Refusal to provide batch-specific documentation
Date codes that predate the supplier's claimed establishment

Why It Matters: Batch tracking is fundamental to quality assurance. Without it, you cannot verify the COA corresponds to your actual product. This enables suppliers to use one good batch's test results for multiple untested batches.

Pressure Sales Tactics

Warning Assessment: Artificial urgency and pressure indicate supplier prioritizes sales over customer consideration.

Pressure Indicators:

"Stock running out" claims with perpetual countdown timers
"Limited batches" that never actually sell out
"Price increasing tomorrow" repeated weekly
Aggressive email campaigns after browsing site
Sales representatives pushing immediate decisions
"Today only" discounts that repeat constantly
Minimum order requirements much larger than research needs

Legitimate Behavior: Professional suppliers allow customers time to review testing, compare options, and make informed decisions. Research compounds require careful consideration—legitimate suppliers understand this.

Poor Website Security

Warning Assessment: Inadequate security measures expose customer data and indicate unprofessional operations.

Security Red Flags:

No SSL certificate (site shows "Not Secure" warning)
Payment processing through non-secure forms
Requesting credit card information via email
No privacy policy or terms of service
Checkout pages redirecting to suspicious domains
Shared hosting with malware warnings
Site frequently offline or inaccessible

Data Security Implications: Poor website security exposes personal information, payment details, and purchase history. This creates identity theft risk and potential legal exposure.

Lack of Research-Only Disclaimers

Warning Assessment: Suppliers who imply, suggest, or directly promote human use are operating outside legal compliance and increasing regulatory risk.

Compliance Red Flags:

Marketing materials showing human dosing information
Product descriptions mentioning health benefits or treatment
Before/after photos implying human use results
Dosing calculators based on body weight
Testimonials describing personal use experiences
No "Not for Human Consumption" labeling on products
Customer service providing dosing advice

Regulatory Risk: Suppliers promoting human use increase likelihood of FDA enforcement actions, product seizures, and business shutdowns. This creates supply interruption risk and potential customer list exposure to regulatory authorities.

No Customer Service or Support

Warning Assessment: Inability or unwillingness to provide support indicates either understaffing or preparation for abandonment.

Support Warning Signs:

Email inquiries unanswered for multiple days
No phone support or phone numbers disconnected
Live chat systems that never connect to actual agents
Generic responses clearly from automated systems
Support tickets closed without resolution
Refund or return requests ignored entirely
No response to quality concerns or testing questions

Support Test: Before ordering, send a detailed technical question about testing methods or specific batch purity. Legitimate suppliers respond professionally within 24-48 hours with substantive answers.

Suspicious Domain History

Warning Assessment: Recent domain registration or history of rebranding may indicate previous failures or fraud operations.

Domain Intelligence:

Domain registered less than 6 months ago (limited track record)
Multiple previous brand names for same operation
Domain history showing previous unrelated businesses
WHOIS privacy hiding ownership information
Registrant location inconsistent with claimed business location
Domain about to expire (may indicate exit scam timing)
Previously associated with scam reports or fraud complaints

Investigation Tools: Use WHOIS lookup services, domain age checkers, and Wayback Machine to investigate domain history and previous uses.

3. Minor Warnings: Proceed With Caution

THREAT LEVEL: MODERATE - Additional Verification Recommended

Limited Testing Panel

COAs showing only purity without testing for:

Bacterial endotoxins
Heavy metals
Residual solvents
Peptide-related impurities

Context: Some newer or smaller suppliers may provide basic HPLC purity testing while building more comprehensive testing programs. Not necessarily fraudulent, but indicates less rigorous quality control than ideal.

Recent Market Entry

New Supplier Indicators:

Business established less than 12 months ago
Limited customer reviews or testimonials
Small product catalog
No independent testing verification yet established

Risk Assessment: New suppliers lack track record but aren't necessarily fraudulent. Require enhanced verification: independent testing, small initial orders, community vetting period.

Shipping from High-Risk Jurisdictions

Jurisdictional Concerns:

Countries with minimal pharmaceutical regulation
Locations known for counterfeit pharmaceutical operations
Jurisdictions with no legal recourse for buyers
Areas with high customs seizure rates

Context: Some legitimate manufacturers operate from these locations, but increased due diligence required. Verify through multiple independent test results from known community members.

Generic Product Photography

Photography Red Flags:

Stock photos or images clearly from other suppliers
No photos showing actual product packaging or labels
Professional product shots inconsistent with business scale
Images showing different branding than supplier's current name

Why It Matters: May indicate dropshipping operation or lack of actual inventory. Not necessarily fraudulent but suggests you're buying from a middleman rather than direct source.

Vague Testing Timeline

Warning Signs:

"COAs coming soon" without specific dates
Testing results delayed repeatedly
COAs significantly older than stated testing schedule
Claims of "testing every batch" without evidence

Acceptable Context: Testing delays can occur legitimately during lab backlogs or when switching testing facilities. Concerning if pattern persists or combined with other warnings.

Overly Broad Product Catalog

Catalog Red Flags:

Hundreds of peptides including extremely rare compounds
Products ranging from peptides to SARMs to nootropics to steroids
Offering compounds no other supplier stocks
Constantly adding new products without testing documentation

Risk Assessment: May indicate inventory sourced from multiple manufacturers without consistent quality control. Difficult to maintain testing standards across extensive catalogs.

4. Fraud Pattern Recognition

The Exit Scam

Pattern Profile: Established supplier suddenly changes behavior before disappearing with customer payments.

Warning Sequence:

Phase 1 - Reputation Building: Operate legitimately for 6-18 months, building positive reviews and community trust
Phase 2 - Acceleration: Heavy promotional campaigns, steep discounts, bulk purchase incentives
Phase 3 - Collection: Process high volume of orders and payments over 2-4 week period
Phase 4 - Delay Tactics: Shipping delays, inventory excuses, "supplier problems"
Phase 5 - Exit: Website goes offline, communications cease, business disappears

Behavioral Indicators:

Sudden deep discounts from previously stable pricing
Aggressive promotion of bulk purchases or prepayment
Encouraging cryptocurrency payment when previously accepting cards
Shipping delays becoming more frequent and prolonged
Communication quality degrading or becoming more generic
Website functionality declining (broken features, outdated info)
Social media activity ceasing or becoming automated

Historical Examples: Multiple suppliers in the research peptide space have executed this pattern, typically collecting $50,000-$200,000 in final orders before vanishing.

The Bait-and-Switch

Pattern Profile: Advertise premium products at low prices, deliver inferior or different compounds.

Execution Methods:

Substitution: Send cheaper peptide alternatives (e.g., GHRP-6 instead of CJC-1295)
Underdosing: Label as 5mg vials, actually contain 2-3mg
Empty Vials: Deliver sterile water or saline instead of peptide compounds
Degraded Product: Sell expired or improperly stored inventory at new product prices

Detection Strategy:

Independent third-party testing of received products
Compare mass spectrometry results to COA claims
Watch for pattern of complaints about product effectiveness
Test reconstitution behavior (legitimate peptides have characteristic patterns)

The Rebranding Cycle

Pattern Profile: Failed or fraud operation relaunches under new brand name to escape negative reputation.

Identification Markers:

Nearly identical website design to previous failed supplier
Same product photography across multiple brand names
Identical pricing structure and product offerings
Similar promotional language and marketing copy
Same shipping origin or packaging as defunct supplier
Shared contact email domains or phone number patterns
Overlapping social media followers or engagement patterns

Intelligence Tracking: Community databases maintain records of suspected rebranding operations. Cross-reference new suppliers against known fraud operation characteristics.

The False Laboratory

Pattern Profile: Create fake testing laboratory to generate fraudulent COAs for their own products.

Red Flag Indicators:

Testing laboratory only tests products for single supplier
Laboratory website recently created or poorly developed
No independent verification of laboratory accreditation
Laboratory contact information routes back to supplier
Testing prices or turnaround times impossible for legitimate facilities
Laboratory address is virtual office or residential location
No staff listings, equipment descriptions, or facility photos

Verification Protocol: Contact legitimate testing facilities directly to verify they performed the tests. Check laboratory accreditation status with ISO/IEC 17025 registries.

5. Known Scam Tactics in the Research Peptide Market

The "Testing Credit" Scam

How It Works: Supplier offers to reimburse customers for independent third-party testing, then never honors the reimbursement or makes process impossibly difficult.

Variations:

Requires excessive documentation that was never mentioned initially
Claims testing laboratory isn't "approved" after customer pays for testing
Offers store credit instead of cash reimbursement (trapping money)
Adds fine print requirements discovered only after testing completed
Simply ignores reimbursement requests entirely

Purpose: Creates false confidence in product quality while avoiding actual independent verification costs.

The Selective Scammer

How It Works: Fulfill orders successfully to established community members and reviewers while scamming new or anonymous customers.

Strategy:

Identify customers with community influence or review platforms
Provide excellent service and legitimate products to these targets
Generate positive reviews and testimonials from real experiences
Scam general customer base who lack platform to report issues
Use positive reviews as defense when scam reports emerge

Detection: Look for extreme variance in customer experiences—some glowing reviews while others report complete fraud. Check reviewer history to identify potential selective targeting.

The Fake Seizure Excuse

How It Works: Claim customs seized package to avoid shipping or refunding, when no shipment was ever sent.

Red Flags:

No tracking number provided until after "seizure" claimed
Tracking numbers that were never actually scanned by carrier
Multiple customers experiencing identical "seizures" simultaneously
No customs documentation or seizure letters provided
Refusal to reship or refund for "seized" packages
Pattern of seizures much higher than industry norm

Reality Check: Legitimate customs seizures generate official documentation. Carriers provide detailed tracking showing customs processing. Multiple simultaneous seizures are extremely unlikely unless major enforcement action occurred (which would be publicly reported).

The Shill Review Network

How It Works: Create network of fake reviews, social media accounts, and forum users to generate false positive reputation.

Identification Markers:

Reviews posted in clusters (multiple positive reviews within hours)
Generic, similar language across different "customers"
Reviewer accounts created recently with little other activity
Overly enthusiastic reviews lacking specific product details
Defensive responses to any negative feedback
Reviews appearing before product could realistically be tested
Same reviewers appearing for multiple suspicious suppliers

Verification: Check review timing against product arrival and testing timelines. Legitimate reviews include specific details about ordering, shipping, testing processes, and results.

The Upgrade Bait

How It Works: Claim ordered product is out of stock, offer "free upgrade" to more expensive product, deliver nothing or inferior substitution.

Pattern:

Accept order and payment for standard product
Days or weeks later, claim inventory shortage
Offer "upgrade" to premium product at no additional cost
Either never ship anything or ship wrong/empty vials
Claim upgraded product isn't eligible for refund due to "higher value"

Purpose: Delays customer complaints while making refund disputes more complicated. Creates confusion about what was actually ordered versus received.

The Research Requirement Trap

How It Works: Require customers to demonstrate research credentials or institutional affiliation, collect personal/professional information, then use it for identity theft or extortion.

Information Requests (Red Flags):

Copies of research licenses or professional certifications
Institutional email addresses and employment verification
Detailed research protocols and laboratory information
Personal identification beyond what payment processing requires
Social security numbers or tax ID numbers

Legitimate Context: Some suppliers do require institutional information for CYA purposes, but legitimate operations use secure verification processes and don't request excessive personal details.

Risk Assessment: Information collected could be used for identity theft, professional blackmail, or sold to marketing databases. Particularly dangerous given gray-area legal status of research peptides.

Real-World Examples & Intelligence Reports

Blue Sky Peptides - The Standard Bearer (Positive Example)

Operational Profile: Established 2015, consistently maintained comprehensive third-party testing, transparent business operations, responsive customer service.

Why They Set the Standard:

Batch-specific COAs from accredited laboratories (Colmaric, Janoshik)
Testing included purity, endotoxins, heavy metals
Consistent communication and support
Professional website with security protocols
Clear research-only disclaimers and compliance
Trackable shipping with reliable fulfillment

Intelligence Value: Use Blue Sky Peptides' standards as baseline for evaluating other suppliers. Any supplier failing to meet these standards requires additional scrutiny.

Status Note: As of 2024, Blue Sky Peptides ceased operations. This demonstrates that even legitimate suppliers face business sustainability challenges in this market.

Umbrella Labs - Selective Quality Issues

Operational Profile: Large supplier with extensive product catalog, mixed community feedback, inconsistent testing standards.

Warning Indicators Identified:

Reports of inconsistent product quality between batches
Some COAs showed questionable testing comprehensiveness
Customer service quality varied significantly
Community reports of products not matching labeled concentrations
Product catalog breadth raised questions about quality control capacity

Community Response: Independent testing by customers revealed some products tested below labeled purity. Mixed recommendations—some customers satisfied, others reported problems.

Intelligence Assessment: Represents "gray area" supplier—not outright fraud but concerning quality control gaps. Highlights importance of independent verification even with established suppliers.

The Chinese Direct Source Pattern

Operational Profile: Direct manufacturers offering wholesale pricing via WhatsApp/Telegram contact.

Mixed Risk Assessment:

Legitimate Cases: Some researchers successfully source directly from Chinese peptide manufacturers with proper verification
Scam Cases: Others receive empty vials, wrong compounds, or nothing after payment

Critical Verification Requirements:

Verify manufacturer business registration in China
Require independent third-party testing (not manufacturer's own reports)
Small test orders before bulk purchases
Community verification of specific contact and manufacturer
Escrow payment services when possible
Understanding of import regulations and customs risk

Intelligence Note: High reward potential (lower pricing) but requires significant due diligence and risk tolerance. Not recommended for first-time buyers or those unable to conduct independent testing.

The Serial Rebrander

Pattern Identified: Operation running under multiple sequential brand names: "PeptidePros" (2020) → "ResearchBio" (2021) → "ElitePeptides" (2022)

Red Flag Timeline:

Each brand operated 6-12 months before closure
Identical website templates with different logos
Same product photos across all three brands
Similar promotional language and pricing structures
Multiple scam reports for each brand name
Pattern of exit scams at end of each brand cycle

Community Response: Database tracking connected the operations, warned members when new brand emerged. Demonstrates value of community intelligence networks.

Lesson Learned: Always cross-reference new suppliers against databases of known scam operations. Visual similarity in websites and marketing is strong indicator of rebranding.

6. How to Report Suspicious Suppliers

Community Intelligence Platforms

Primary Reporting Channels:

Reddit: r/Peptides - Community threads tracking supplier experiences and scam reports
Peptide Forums - Dedicated peptide research communities maintain supplier review sections
Discord Communities - Real-time discussion and warning systems for emerging scams
Scam Tracking Websites - Dedicated databases documenting fraud operations

Information to Include:

Supplier name, website, and contact information
Detailed timeline of your experience
Documentation: orders, communications, COAs, tracking numbers
Photos of products received (if any)
Independent testing results (if conducted)
Payment method and transaction details
Any suspicious behaviors or red flags observed

Financial & Legal Reporting

Credit Card Chargebacks

Process:

Contact your credit card issuer immediately upon discovering fraud
File chargeback dispute citing "goods not received" or "significantly not as described"
Provide documentation: order confirmation, communications, lack of delivery proof
Time-sensitive: most issuers require disputes within 60-120 days

FTC Complaint (United States)

Process:

File report at ReportFraud.ftc.gov
Select category: "Online Shopping and Negative Reviews"
Provide detailed information about fraud incident
Include documentation and evidence

Purpose: Creates official record, contributes to enforcement pattern recognition, may trigger investigation if multiple reports filed.

IC3 - Internet Crime Complaint Center

Process:

File complaint at ic3.gov (FBI's cyber crime division)
Provide detailed information about online fraud
Include all supporting documentation
Particularly relevant for cryptocurrency fraud or sophisticated scams

State Attorney General Consumer Protection Division

Process:

Contact your state's Attorney General office
File consumer protection complaint
Relevant if supplier claims to operate from your state
May trigger state-level investigation or enforcement

Payment Processor Reporting

Why This Matters: Payment processors can shut down merchant accounts, preventing future victims.

Credit Card Processors

Report fraudulent merchants to Visa/Mastercard/Amex through your issuing bank
Processors maintain fraud databases affecting merchant's ability to process payments
Multiple reports trigger account reviews and potential termination

PayPal Disputes

File dispute through PayPal Resolution Center
Select "Item not received" or "Significantly not as described"
Provide evidence within dispute timeline
PayPal may freeze merchant funds pending investigation

Cryptocurrency Exchange Reporting

Report fraudulent wallet addresses to exchanges (Coinbase, Kraken, etc.)
Some exchanges maintain blacklists of fraud-associated wallets
Limited recourse but creates enforcement trail

Domain & Hosting Reporting

Abuse Reporting:

Identify hosting provider via WHOIS lookup
File abuse report with hosting company
Report fraudulent websites to domain registrar
Google Safe Browsing report for phishing/malware sites

Impact: Hosting providers and registrars can suspend services, taking fraudulent sites offline and preventing further victims.

Documentation Best Practices

Evidence Collection Protocol:

Screenshots: Capture website, product pages, checkout process, communications
Email Archive: Save all communications in exportable format
Transaction Records: Bank statements, payment confirmations, receipts
Tracking Information: Shipping confirmations, carrier tracking history
Product Documentation: Photos of received products, COAs, packaging
Testing Results: Independent lab testing if conducted
Timeline Creation: Detailed chronological record of all interactions

Why Comprehensive Documentation Matters:

Strengthens chargeback disputes
Provides evidence for legal/regulatory complaints
Helps community members identify same scam operation
Creates accountability record
Supports pattern recognition for fraud tracking

Final Intelligence Assessment

The research peptide marketplace contains significant fraud infrastructure designed to exploit customer knowledge gaps, urgency, and trust. Approximately 30-40% of suppliers display critical red flags warranting immediate disqualification. Another 20-30% show concerning patterns requiring enhanced verification.

Operational Security Protocol

Verify First: Never order without verifying third-party testing, business legitimacy, and community intelligence
Start Small: Initial orders should be minimal investment to verify product and service quality
Independent Testing: Conduct your own third-party testing when possible, especially for new suppliers
Payment Protection: Use payment methods with buyer protection (credit cards, PayPal goods/services)
Community Intelligence: Cross-reference suppliers against community databases and recent reports
Document Everything: Maintain records of orders, communications, and received products
Trust Your Instincts: If something feels wrong, it probably is—walk away

Critical Red Flag Summary

Immediate Disqualification Criteria:

No third-party testing or COAs
Fake or manipulated testing data
Impossible purity claims (100%)
Anonymous operations with no business verification
Cryptocurrency-only payment
Extreme low pricing significantly below market

Remember: In the research peptide market, your best defense is informed skepticism. Legitimate suppliers welcome verification, provide comprehensive documentation, and operate transparently. Any supplier resistant to scrutiny should be considered compromised.

The intelligence in this guide comes from years of community experience, documented fraud cases, and verified scam reports. Share this information to protect fellow researchers and reduce fraud prevalence in this space.