Trust score
88 / 100
The trust score combines technical checks, reputation signals where available, website history cues, scam intelligence, and AI-assisted analysis.
Signals behind your score
Limited verification
Availability: reachable · Website responded. (HTTP 200)
Inspection: full · dns=true · tls=true · botProtection=false · parserFailure=false · contentLength=26053
Matches from scam intelligence
Serious matches from known phishing, malware, or public scam-warning sources. Provider names appear below each row.
No known phishing, malware, or police-aligned scam warnings were found in this scan.
Detected risk patterns
Additional patterns worth a closer look before you pay or sign in—not proof on their own.
No additional prioritized risk rows were raised beyond curated list matches.
Helpful signals & observations
Supporting checks in plain language. “Not found” means we did not see a report in that source during this scan.
No police list match found
No direct domain match was found on the public police trader-warning list checked in this scan.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages)Source reliability: low
Check unavailable
RDAP lookup overrun or error: WhoisXML guardrails unavailable (20260618070000_whoisxml_usage_guardrails): ❌ Migration missing - falling back to memory cache. Run: npm run db:migrate:deploy
Source: RDAPSource reliability: low
No known phishing report found
This website was not found in known phishing threat lists during this scan. New scam sites can appear quickly, so this is one signal among several.
Source: OpenPhishSource reliability: medium
URLhaus unavailable
HTTP 401
Source: URLhausSource reliability: low
HTTPS is available
HTTPS is available. This protects the connection, but does not verify that the site is legitimate. Issuer: Let's Encrypt. Expiry: 2026-08-01T04:27:08.000Z.
Source: TLS certificate checkSource reliability: high
Domain & registration
- Checked URL/hostname: metamaskwallet.to
- Registered domain: metamaskwallet.to
- Registration date: unknown
- Domain age: Unavailable
- Registrar: unknown
- Country: unknown
- Expiration date: unknown
- Privacy / redacted ownership hints: no / unknown
Source: RDAP (rdap.org)
Redirect analysis
- Original URL: https://metamaskwallet.to/
- Final URL: https://metamaskwallet.to/
- Final domain: metamaskwallet.to
- Redirect count: 0
- Crossed registrable domain: no
Security checks (HTTPS / certificates)
- HTTPS/TLS reachable: yes
- Certificate trusted in probe: yes
- Possibly self-signed / untrusted: no / unknown
- Issuer: Let's Encrypt
- Expiry: 2026-08-01T04:27:08.000Z
Source: TLS certificate check
Technical source details
Raw provider names (OpenPhish, URLhaus, Google Web Risk, RDAP, etc.) for this scan. “Matched” means that source reported something relevant.
No Police page string matchgovernmentno match
No direct domain string overlap was detected in lightly cached excerpts of the referenced politie.nl pages. Missing a hit is not proof a shop is trustworthy.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages) · severity: info · reliability: low
Check unavailabledomainno match
RDAP lookup overrun or error: WhoisXML guardrails unavailable (20260618070000_whoisxml_usage_guardrails): ❌ Migration missing - falling back to memory cache. Run: npm run db:migrate:deploy
Source: RDAP · severity: info · reliability: low
No OpenPhish match found in this snapshotphishingno match
No overlapping entry was found in the fetched OpenPhish feed for this check window. This does not prove the site is safe.
Source: OpenPhish · severity: info · reliability: medium
URLhaus unavailablemalwareno match
HTTP 401
Source: URLhaus · severity: info · reliability: low
HTTPS is availablesslno match
HTTPS is available. This protects the connection, but does not verify that the site is legitimate. Issuer: Let's Encrypt. Expiry: 2026-08-01T04:27:08.000Z.
Source: TLS certificate check · severity: info · reliability: high
Reputation enrichment
Optional broader reputation pass when available—beyond the quick baseline probes.
No enriched reputation profile surfaced. That limits context; it does not prove the site is unsafe.
Quick review probes (baseline scan)
Lightweight directory checks powering part of the model—hiccups here describe our snapshot, not the shop’s honesty.
Trustpilot · Unavailable
UnavailableTrustpilot
No public reviews found
Checked, no public reviews found
Google Reviews · Not confidently linked
Limited dataGoogle Reviews
We found possible review data, but could not confidently link it to this domain.
Not confidently linked
We found possible review data, but could not confidently link it to this domain.
- No reliable public review data found
Independent customer review data is unavailable, and there are several risk indicators regarding business legitimacy.
- Public review data unavailable for this check.
Source availability (neutral)
- Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
- Indexed review snippets probe: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Raw review snapshots
Trustpilot raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Google reviews raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Fulfillment signals
Dropshipping: unlikely · China-linked fulfillment: unlikely · Local stock/production: unlikely · Confidence low · Score nudge: 0
- Marketplace terms detected: unlikely
- Third-party seller language detected: unlikely
- Cross-border shipping detected: unlikely
- Supplier fulfillment detected: unlikely
- Separate shipment language detected: unlikely
- International shipping detected: unlikely
- Fulfillment confidence: low · Fulfillment score nudge: 0
- Corpus: 3 segments / 9915 chars · version: fulfillment-v2-marketplace · matched: none
- No strong supply-chain signals detected in snippet.
Scoring detail (advanced)
Composite model uses raw impacts × confidence weights on the server. Positive numbers push the risk score up; negative numbers pull it down. Neutral rows are explanatory only — they must not be read as endorsement.
Applied trust-score cap after identity guardrails: 82/100 displayed trust.
"Trusted" was withheld because reputation or RDAP lifecycle evidence did not independently anchor identity for this snapshot.
Combined scoring signals (reviews, reputation, feeds, fulfillment…)
Trust-positive signals
- Business name presence (-3 raw · medium confidence) — References Metamaskwallet.
- Valid HTTPS baseline (-3 raw · low confidence) — HTTPS and certificate checks looked healthy in this run. This is supportive context, not proof of legitimacy.
Website & technical observations
- No matched Google listing (+0 raw · high confidence) — No Google Places listing matched this domain; review impact is neutral (not a penalty).
Detected risk patterns
- No business address in snippet (+5 raw · low confidence) — No obvious physical address in the captured text; for blogs, SaaS landing pages and portfolios that is often normal.
- Business legitimacy caution (+5 raw · low confidence) — No clear contact or support channel was found in the captured content.
Incomplete or unavailable data
- Domain registration age unavailable (+0 raw · low confidence) — Domain registration age could not be verified during this scan. Some registries temporarily limit or omit registration data. This does not mean the website is suspicious, and it was not treated as a risk signal.
- Domain ownership could not be verified from public registration data (+1 raw · low confidence) — WHOIS/RDAP did not expose corroboratable registrant signals in this crawl. That is common and mainly reduces how confidently we can score—not evidence of impersonation by itself.
Scam intelligence weighting (model)
No weighted intel contributions in this run.
Review collector notes (neutral)
Buckets distinguish provider errors, source outages, review-derived signals, and (rare) website crawler transparency—never merged with fraud intel.
- trustpilot_public · source_unavailable: Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
- google_indexed_snippets · source_unavailable: Indexed review snippets probe: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Key factors explained
Blended notes from patterns we detected, scam intelligence scoring, and optional AI assistance—not legal or financial advice.
- AI risk signal: medium
- No reliable public review data found, indicating a lack of independent customer feedback.
- Absence of clear contact or support channels raises concerns about business legitimacy.
AI model used in this run: yes
