Volcano Energy

⚖️ 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.

• 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.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• Federal Court Records:2.0/5(3 cases)· checked Aug 31, 2026view ↗

  3 federal court records matched this company as a party in the RECAP archive: "KEELER CO., INC. v. VOLCANO ENERGY" (District Court, D. New Jersey, filed 1992-02-24); "THE KEELER COMPANY v. VOLCANO ENERGY" (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, filed 1991-08-05); "ARMADA INV GRP, INC. v. VOLCANO ENERGY SYS" (District Court, D. New Jersey, filed 1991-06-13). 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 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:3.0/5(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 2018)· checked Aug 30, 2026view ↗

Google Search SummaryC

A state-adjacent El Salvador infrastructure project rather than a retail hosting provider: a renewable park of roughly 241 MW planned in Metapán, around $1bn of stated total investment with $250m initial, partners including Luxor Technology and Tether, and extensive mainstream coverage of the country's geothermal Bitcoin mining. The most relevant 2026 development is a change of purpose — geothermal capacity originally earmarked for mining is being redirected toward AI data centres — so what this entity will actually be doing is shifting. There is no customer-facing service to review here and no complaint record in either direction; the project is well documented but not comparable to the hosting providers alongside it. Held at C.

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