Wattum

⚖️ 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 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.

• 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.

• Federal Court Records:2.0/5(9 cases)· checked Aug 30, 2026view ↗

  9 federal court records matched this company as a party in the RECAP archive: "First Argentine Mining Co. v. Wattum Management Inc." (District Court, S.D. Florida, filed 2024-03-18); "Wattum Management, Inc. v. Chengdu Chenxiyu Technology Co., Ltd." (District Court, S.D. Florida, filed 2024-03-18); "First Argentine Mining Co. v. Wattum Management Inc." (District Court, S.D. Florida, filed 2024-03-18); "First Argentine Mining Co. v. Wattum Management Inc." (District Court, S.D. Florida, filed 2024-03-15); "First Argentine Mining Co. v. Wattum Management Inc." (District Court, S.D. Florida, filed 2024-03-14) — plus 4 more. 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.

• ScamAdviser:2.5/5(Caution Recommended)· checked Jul 9, 2026view ↗
• Website Exists:5.0/5(A)· checked Sep 3, 2026view ↗
• Site History:5.0/5(since 2017)· checked Aug 30, 2026view ↗

Trustpilot Summary3.0★

3.0 from 67 Trustpilot reviews, and this profile needs to be read with more care than most because both the positive and negative reviews carry credibility problems. The negative reviews are serious and concrete: miners paid for and never delivered; an order shipped to the wrong address and never reshipped; machines promised online in February that did not start until late May; and a customer who reports being told six months into mining that they would need to buy ten more machines to continue. Others allege non-payment of profits and deposits, one naming the chief executive directly. The severity ranges from delivery failure to outright fraud allegations, and the fraud allegations are reviewer claims that nothing on the profile substantiates. The positive reviews are the unusual part. One negative reviewer makes a specific, checkable allegation about them — that the 5-star reviews come from accounts whose histories show five or six similar reviews for unrelated businesses posted on the same day, which is the standard signature of purchased reviews. Some positives are consistent with that (short, effusive, low detail); others are not, describing conference conversations about hashboard firmware or the delivery of fifty M50+ units, which is a level of specificity fabricated reviews rarely carry. The honest reading is that the 3.0 average sits over a genuinely contested profile, with a real record of delivery failures on one side and a credible question mark over the reviews on the other. Anyone considering an order here should insist on delivery terms with remedies, and should not treat the star average as evidence in either direction.

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+

A real Miami-based full-service mining provider (founded 2019) whose complaint record has hardened: customers reporting money owed and promised payments never sent, a shipment sent to the wrong address and never re-shipped despite assurances, and a repeated pattern of being responsive before payment and hard to reach after. BBB complaints exist alongside genuine praise for equipment quality and knowledgeable support. The post-payment unresponsiveness pattern across independent reviewers is what holds this in the D range.

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

Reddit SummaryF+

SCOPE NOTE FIRST, so this grade can be argued with. The daemon opened only two threads in this capture; it skipped the four Wattum-specific ones as 'unchanged' because it had already read them on 19-20 August 2026. So what is on file here is titles, result snippets and engagement counts for those four, not their bodies. This affirms the stored F+ on that basis; it does not re-derive it from scratch, and it should not be read as a fresh full read. What the capture does show, from r/BitcoinMining and all naming Wattum Management explicitly: (1) 'Wattum Management - two facilities offline for months and extreme difficulty to receive deposits or miners back' — 28 votes, 46 comments, with the visible snippet 'Tickets are regularly ignored and if you are lucky enough to get a response it will be something along the lines of "we are working on it".' (2) 'Wattum Management bitcoin mining farm - review December 2021' — 7 votes, 35 comments, snippet: 'It's very telling when wattum employees have disappeared from discord and telegram where they used to discuss their service.' (3) 'My experience with Wattum Management & Zionodes' — 16 votes, 28 comments, and this one opens POSITIVE: an ASIC added to NiceHash and 'up and running in under 5 minutes. Great so far, and will likely add more units over time.' (4) A 45-comment r/BitcoinMining 'Hosting Service' thread, also skipped as unchanged. One independent cross-reference did open, and it is useful because it comes from someone reviewing a DIFFERENT host: a long Compass Mining review praises Compass for having 'no surcharges for electricity consumption or management fees (like with Wattum)'. A customer of a competitor volunteering Wattum as the counter-example on billing surcharges is corroboration nobody had a motive to plant. GRADE: F+ affirmed. The failure types described — facilities offline for months, deposits and miners not returned, tickets ignored, staff withdrawing from the public channels where they used to answer — are multiple independent reports of the same failure, which is the F band. Not F-, which the rubric reserves for clear multiply-corroborated scam patterns: nobody here alleges the company took money and vanished, and one reviewer's experience was positive. Confidence medium, not high: four threads and roughly 150 comments is real volume, but all of it dates from 2021-2022 and nothing on Reddit has been added in the four years since — so this grade describes a documented past, not a measured present. r/wattum, the company's own subreddit, shows 2 weekly visitors and 0 weekly contributions.

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