Digital Shovel

⚖️ RegulatoryD

Checked against 1 regulator source — no warnings found.

Reads whatever court/regulator sources are configured for this score (see the Regulatory section below) and reports back — it's a starting point for your own research, not a verdict.

• Federal Court Records:2.0/5(1 case)· checked Sep 2, 2026view ↗

  1 federal court record matched this company as a party in the RECAP archive: "Digital Shovel Holdings Inc. v. RK Mission Critical, LLC" (District Court, D. Colorado, filed 2024-05-01). Litigation presence is a caution flag requiring manual review, not proof of wrongdoing — the company may be a plaintiff, and party-name matches can collide with similarly named entities (case names listed above so a human can verify).

🛡️ Trust SignalsB-

Checked against 3 trust signals — see the per-source breakdown below.

Reads whatever site-health/trust sources are configured for this score (see the Trust Signals section below) and reports back — it's a starting point for your own research, not a verdict.

• Website Exists:5.0/5(A)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Website Freshness:1.8/5(21%)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Site History:5.0/5(since 2011)· checked Aug 25, 2026view ↗

Google Search SummaryC

Mixed record for Digital Shovel Holdings (Toronto, founded 2018; modular/mobile mining-container hosting). Genuine positive testimonials exist alongside serious complaint-site allegations from a different customer: 9 miners sent in 2018 went offline after 2 months, promised relocations described as unfulfilled through contract end in 2019, and a separate customer reporting an upfront annual payment followed by 2 months of partial service then complete downtime with "empty promises" of relocation.

Compiled from public forum/search discussion (via manual research, automated tools, or both), not independently verified. Reflects poster opinions, not confirmed fact.

Reddit SummaryB- (limited data)

Entity confirmed — every hit is the mining-container manufacturer, no collision with r/Tools or the generic 'digital shovel' phrase. But read the CONFIDENCE field before the grade: this record contains no customer purchase, delivery, warranty or support testimony at all. The strongest genuine mention is indirect and, for that reason, unusually credible. In an r/BitcoinMining thread from ~4 months ago, an operator designing a 60 x S21 air-cooled room posts his cooling plan, gets told bluntly by a commenter that it will overheat in 'about 30 seconds', and returns with a revised design explaining that he studied Digital Shovel's units to build it: 'I've elected to put a partition board formed fitted out of plywood behind my shelves as I've seen Digital Shovel do it, and it seems to work', citing a company video showing a thin partition-steel sheet between the miners and the exhaust fans. Nobody in the thread disputes the reference. A stranger treating a manufacturer's containers as the design standard to copy is a real signal about the engineering, and it came up unprompted in a thread about someone else's problem. The second is product news rather than opinion: an r/BitAxe post (16 votes, 8 comments) noting the Digital Shovel BluAx is 'basically a Digital Shovel branded BitAxe' at 1.2 Th/s. The daemon did not open it, so only the title and snippet are on file. DISCARDED, and this is the important exclusion: both r/VoskCoin entries — 'Easily Deploy 27 Bitcoin Miners! Digital Shovel Nanopod Review' and 'Prebuilt Bitcoin Mining Container - 6 Month Review'. These are a YouTube channel posting links to its own review videos on its own subreddit; they carry 3 and 2 votes and ZERO comments each, and reviewer-channel content of that kind is closer to the review-aggregator material the rubric already excludes than to customer testimony. Counting them would inflate a thin record with the company's own publicity surface. GRADE: stored B- affirmed rather than moved. There is not a single negative signal anywhere in the capture — no delivery, quality, warranty or support complaint — and the one substantive mention is a peer engineer endorsing the build quality by copying it. That is consistent with B-. It is affirmed rather than re-derived: two mentions cannot independently support a B-band grade, and downgrading a stored grade on evidence thinner than produced it would be a regression, not an update. Confidence LOW is doing the real work here — it is the honest signal that this grade rests on an absence of complaints plus one indirect endorsement, not on customers describing what it is like to buy from them.

Compiled from public forum/search discussion (via manual research, automated tools, or both), not independently verified. Reflects poster opinions, not confirmed fact.