Sabre56

⚖️ RegulatoryD

Checked against 5 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Federal Court Records:2.0/5(2 cases)· checked Aug 29, 2026view ↗

  2 federal court records matched this company as a party in the RECAP archive: "Sabre56 Inc. v. Arkon Energy US Holdco, Inc." (District Court, E.D. Michigan, filed 2025-01-22); "Phoenix Trading FZCO v. Dennis Corporation" (District Court, D. South Carolina, filed 2022-07-21). 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 SignalsD

Checked against 2 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.

• Site History:4.0/5(since 2021)· checked Aug 30, 2026view ↗
• Website Exists:1.0/5(F)· checked Aug 3, 2026view ↗

Trustpilot Summary3.2★

One Trustpilot review, and it is not a customer account. The single 1-star entry (September 2024) alleges that people were asked to do work in the USA and then not paid. That is a payment dispute raised by someone describing themselves as a worker, not an assessment of the data-centre hosting service the company actually sells. The practical consequence is that this profile is unusable as a measure of service quality: there are no reviews on file from anyone who has hosted machines here. The 3.2 TrustScore reflects Trustpilot's baseline on a lone review rather than any judgement of the business. The non-payment allegation is recorded rather than dismissed — it is a claim about the company's conduct, and it is the only thing anyone has said here. But it comes from one anonymous reviewer, it concerns employment rather than hosting, and nothing on this source corroborates or refutes it. Re-checked against the 2026-08-30 Trustpilot refresh: still one review, still 3.2, still the same September 2024 entry. Nearly two years have now passed with no second review of any kind, which is itself the most informative fact here — this company's customers do not use Trustpilot, so an absence of complaints on this source is not evidence of satisfaction.

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

Google Search SummaryC-

A UAE-based operator that moved from mining consultancy into building and running its own hosting sites, founded 2021 and led publicly by Phil Harvey. The verifiable record is institutional and positive: a $35 million raise in February 2023 to build 150MW, first four sites totalling 115MW in Wyoming and Texas, a contract to host 4,510 miners for GEM Mining, and a later data-centre consultancy partnership with Arkon Energy. Two separate adverse-signal searches returned no litigation, no regulator action and no customer complaints of any kind. Raised from D- to C-, because the previous grade asserted a mostly-negative record that the current search does not support — but held in the C band rather than higher for two honest reasons: the evidence is trade press and company announcements rather than customer feedback, and the coverage goes quiet after 2023 with no confirmation of current operating status.

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

Reddit Summary

Six threads name Sabre56 across three angles, and not one of them is a customer. Two are the same Business Insider article cross-posted to r/CryptoCurrency and r/CryptoCurrencyClassic four years ago and since archived. Two more are partnership announcements reposted to r/EasyInvestix, a promotional feed — an Arkon Energy data-centre consultancy deal and a GEM Mining agreement to host 4,500 miners. One is a podcast promo for an interview with the CEO. The last is an r/threejs thread in which a web developer discusses the particle effects he built for sabre56.com and links his own write-up: a portfolio reference to the website, not a comment on the business. So the name appears legitimately and in-domain, but no community sentiment exists — nobody has posted about dealing with this company, positively or negatively, in four years of results. Worth knowing why that is unsurprising: Sabre56 is an infrastructure consultancy and site operator working with institutional clients at multi-thousand-miner scale, not a retail host, and that customer base does not post on Reddit. The one retail-hosting thread the search surfaced, "Looking for reliable hosting for 5-6 ASIC", does not mention them at all. No Reddit grade is recorded, because a wall of press releases is not community evidence and grading it as though it were would misrepresent what is here. Eighteen further results were discarded. Weigh the other sources on this page.

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