NeoPool

⚖️ 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 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.

• ScamAdviser:3.8/5(Likely Safe)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗
• Website Exists:5.0/5(A)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Site History:5.0/5(since 2003)· checked Aug 24, 2026view ↗

Trustpilot Summary3.8★

3.8 from only 4 Trustpilot reviews — too small a sample to be meaningful, and the score is best read as almost no signal. The three positive reviews are from mining-pool users and are more specific than most short reviews: no outages over a period of months, consistent daily rewards, and — the point two of them independently make — reward calculations that are transparent and reconcile against the displayed statistics without manual checking, with data exportable for tracking returns. One reports a routing problem fixed quickly by support. The fourth review is a two-word dismissal in Latvian with no detail behind it. Worth noting for accuracy: this profile belongs to the mining pool at neopool.com, not to the similarly named European pool-equipment retailer that shares the name — a collision that has caused misattributed data elsewhere in this directory. The reviews quoted here are all unambiguously about mining. Four reviews cannot establish reliability. Verify payout mechanics against your own pool statistics before committing significant hashrate.

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

Google Search SummaryB

A fast-growing Bitcoin pool that reached roughly 17 EH/s within about two years, placing it inside the global top 15 by contributed hashrate — a figure that is independently checkable against public pool statistics, which is stronger evidence than any review. Miner feedback is consistently positive on the points that matter: no outages reported, daily rewards arriving consistently, and a plainly stated fee and payout calculation with no unexplained deductions. The recurring criticism is that the dashboard is thin for managing fleets at scale. No complaints about withheld funds, disputes or adverse records surfaced; the main caveat is that the operating history is short. Held at B.

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