GoMining

⚖️ Regulatory

Checked against 4 regulator sources — 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.

• IOSCO Investor Alerts:5.0/5(Not listed)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗

  Not named on IOSCO’s Investor Alerts Portal as of 2026-07-10 (checked by name and domain). Scored 5.0/5 under this project's pass/fail convention for regulator lists: clean = 5.0, listed = 1.0.

• UK FCA Warning List:5.0/5(Not listed)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗

  Not named on the UK FCA Warning List as of 2026-07-10 (checked by name and domain). Scored 5.0/5 under this project's pass/fail convention for regulator lists: clean = 5.0, listed = 1.0.

• US SEC PAUSE List:5.0/5(Not listed)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗

  Not named on the SEC PAUSE list as of 2026-07-10 (checked by name and domain). Scored 5.0/5 under this project's pass/fail convention for regulator lists: clean = 5.0, listed = 1.0.

• US CFTC RED List:5.0/5(Not listed)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗

  Not named on the CFTC RED List as of 2026-07-10 (checked by name and domain). Scored 5.0/5 under this project's pass/fail convention for regulator lists: clean = 5.0, listed = 1.0.

🛡️ Trust SignalsA

Checked against 4 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.

• ScamAdviser:4.0/5(Very Likely Safe)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗
• Website Freshness:5.0/5(100%)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Website Exists:5.0/5(A)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Site History:5.0/5(since 2002)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗

Trustpilot Summary

764 Trustpilot reviews, with no aggregate score currently captured — the score field has come back empty on successive collection passes, so read the counts and the text rather than looking for a number here. Reviewers who like the product describe daily rewards and an easy interface, and some have used it for over a year and say they withdraw crypto regularly. The recurring criticisms are the economics and the support: long payback periods on purchased miners — one August reviewer puts theirs in years — top-ups required to sell, and a support function reviewers describe as slow, thin and sometimes dismissive, with one long-standing complaint characterising it as replying only with 'the party line' regardless of the issue raised. Several reviewers report unresolved account-closure and billing disputes, including a GDPR deletion request they say went unactioned, and a recent reviewer describes an account blocked pending extensive identity documentation — driver's licence, national ID, proof of address and bank statement — followed by further demands relating to withdrawals they say they never made. The most specific complaint is a different class of evidence from an ordinary unhappy-customer account: a reviewer states they deposited BTCB over BNB Smart Chain to their assigned GoMining deposit address, gives both the address and the on-chain transaction ID so the transfer can be independently verified, and says front-line support repeatedly closed the ticket with copy-pasted FAQ text rather than crediting the funds. A claim that can be checked against a public ledger is worth following up on the live profile to see whether it was resolved. A second reviewer, the following day, reports paying for USDC through Mercuryo inside the GoMining ecosystem and the funds not arriving hours later, with a long wait to reach support about money already taken. A 26 August entry is the most serious of the funds-held reports because of what it says the company did afterwards. The reviewer states that support agents conceded by email that the account was stuck in an "uncommon situation", declined to refund, deferred repeatedly to "experts looking into it", and actively contested the reviewer's bank dispute while still acknowledging in writing that the underlying problem was unresolved. Contesting a chargeback on a fault you have admitted is a different allegation from slow support, and it is the specific claim to test on the live profile. That makes four money-not-credited or account-frozen reports inside a fortnight across three different payment rails — a wider failure surface than a single stuck payment queue would produce. A separate 20 August entry is a fifth funds-not-received report but a weaker one against the company: the reviewer says their account was taken over, that the intruder substituted a withdrawal address, and that they only discovered this when trying to collect after roughly two years locked out; support acknowledged the case and referred it to a specialist. That is an account-security failure at least partly on the customer's side rather than evidence of company misconduct — but it is worth knowing that a compromised account here can have its payout destination changed and drained without the owner being alerted. The balancing voices are real and not all thin. A multi-year member reports being rewarded daily and withdrawing regularly without difficulty, and an August reviewer who is plainly not a fan states flatly that it does mine bitcoin and can pay out, while conceding collection is slow and that they had to start over. One caution on reading the negative reviews here: on a profile this large, some of the one-star entries are advertisements for rival services rather than customer reports — a recent example warns readers off and then names another platform the reviewer says they use instead. Discount those rather than counting them. Re-checked against the 2026-08-31 Trustpilot refresh: the review count has moved from 763 to 764 and no new complaint has surfaced above the ones described here. The cluster of mid-August funds reports is now roughly a fortnight old with, on this source, no visible resolution.

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

Google Search SummaryD

Re-verified 2026-08-27; the picture is unchanged and the specific complaint pattern still holds. Users report withdrawal delays, unresponsive support, and a fee structure that rises sharply once a token balance runs out, consuming most of the pool rewards. Two further patterns are visible in the current record: accounts being restricted pending large amounts of personal and financial documentation, with at least one user reporting roughly a month before the restriction was lifted, and repeated support requests being asked for the same information in different forms or going unanswered. There is genuine positive experience alongside this — several users of a year or more report daily rewards arriving and successful test withdrawals — so this is a mixed record weighted negative rather than a uniform one. Independent commentary notes that a share of the visible testimonials cannot be verified. The company also remains the subject of a separate, already-recorded regulator alert against an impersonator domain, which is not the company itself and is not counted here.

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

Reddit SummaryD

Unusually well-evidenced for this directory: three dedicated subreddits, one official (r/gomining) and two unofficial (r/GoMiningDiscussion at 908 weekly contributions, r/GoMiningTalk), with sustained ongoing discussion rather than a handful of stale threads. Entity is unambiguous throughout. THE SERIOUS ONE, posted ~3 months ago on the UNOFFICIAL sub — which matters, because it is not a venue the company moderates. A user made a BTC deposit that confirmed on-chain; GoMining froze it on their side. Twenty-four hours of 'you have to wait' with no reason, no timeline and no document request. The post then escalates through three edits: the company initiated a refund without the user's confirmation, then would not supply the receiving wallet address or a transaction ID, while the in-app refund status stayed on 'waiting'. He reports filing a police report and instructing lawyers. A refund the company asserts but will not evidence, on a chain where evidencing it is trivial, is a specific and checkable allegation — and it is the single heaviest item here. THE STRUCTURAL COMPLAINT, ~9 months ago on the official sub, is arithmetic rather than anger and is the most useful thing a prospective buyer could read. One reward cycle: 0.01472515 BTC mined, 0.01113432 BTC taken as electricity (75.6%), 0.00349436 BTC as service fee (23.7%), leaving 0.00009647 BTC — 0.65% kept, 99.35% consumed. The same user alleges the dashboard's stated 15W is not the figure actually used in calculations, and documents a discount-mechanics defect: fees are charged across ~50 rounds rather than once, so a purchased 25% GMT discount was delivered as roughly 18%, costing him 600+ GMT. Verdict: 'more gambling than mining', 'pay-to-win', 'a system where users lose but the platform always wins'. THE COUNTERWEIGHT IS REAL AND NOT THIN. A detailed six-month review on the official sub works through the model honestly — NFT-represented hashrate in real data centres, daily BTC 'like clockwork', compounding that works, proof-of-work shown from the pools (Binance Pool) — and states plainly 'Is it a scam? No... Is it a magical money printer? Also No.' It names its own risks: ROI tracks BTC price and difficulty, fees are mandatory, and if the company fails the NFT is 'a fancy JPEG with zero utility'. A commenter adds the sharp version of that risk: an 850 TH miner earned $3.50 in a day during a drawdown, and he worries about the company's staying power in a sustained dip. AND A FINDING HIDDEN IN THE REPLIES. Three commenters rebut the support complaint — and two of them volunteer that they get VIP support, one identifying as 'vip platinium 2' and reporting four-figure movements across BTC, GMT, SOL, ETH and USDC without trouble. A fourth, not a VIP, describes support as 'basically the same as bot, they just copy/paste replies', got no answer at all, and adds fairly 'All that being said, I wasn't scammed.' Read together that suggests support quality here is tiered by spend, which is worth knowing before judging the platform by the testimony of its largest customers. GRADE: D affirmed, matching the stored grade. Recurring, well-documented complaints about fee transparency and support, plus ONE detailed and so-far uncorroborated non-payment allegation, is exactly the rubric's D. Deliberately not F: F needs multiple independent reports of the same failure type on this source, and Reddit currently carries one, against a substantial body of users reporting reliable daily payouts. Confidence HIGH — not because the negatives are conclusive, but because the volume and continuity of discussion across three active subreddits is the top of the rubric's scale. Context worth stating and NOT counted toward the grade: the company's Trustpilot record carries four separate money-not-credited reports inside one fortnight in August 2026. If any of those pattern-match onto Reddit in a future pass, the F threshold is met and this grade should move.

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