Is pool2.fun a scam? TrustSniffer's high-risk assessment: 24/100

The website is an unpopulated placeholder

a stock "Site not found" 404 page from a code-hosting service's static-page product, stating that no site is published at this address. It presents no products, services, forms, navigation, contact details, or business claims, so its purpose and business model cannot be determined from what it shows a visitor.

Scam/Impersonation Risk

The assessment is cautionary, because a confirmed external blacklist hit is the decisive contradiction. One reputation engine rates the domain malicious and a second rates it suspicious. No brand impersonation, conflicting legal identities, or phishing form was observed, and the page contains no login field, wallet prompt, or payment capture. The risk therefore rests on reputation and on the domain's recent, unestablished standing, not on visible deceptive content. Abuse reports exist against the shared hosting address the domain resolves to. These are attributed to infrastructure shared with other tenants and are not discounted, so they weigh on the domain's reputation. They do not, on their own, show that this domain's operator authored the abuse. The page content also offers nothing that could clear or explain the blacklist hit. Because the address serves an empty placeholder, whoever later publishes content under this domain would inherit a domain that is already flagged, with no on-site history to judge it against. The sandbox run added soft anomalies. Nearly all outbound traffic went to external destinations, three outbound POST requests went to non-whitelisted hosts, the final destination did not match expectations, and the page logged repeated console errors despite its minimal content. These support a cautious reading but are not proof of malicious intent. Evidence:

• Homepage: a stock hosting-provider 404 page ("There isn't a GitHub Pages site here") with no commercial claims, forms, or links.
• External reputation: one engine flags the domain malicious and one flags it suspicious, and the blacklist is corroborated across reputation sources. 39 abuse reports (confidence 42%) were logged against a shared GitHub, Inc. hosting address.
• Domain provenance: WHOIS creation date 2026-09-10 (~0.11 years old, 41 days); the web archive holds 1 snapshot, dated 2025-12-05 (1 year tracked).
• Behavioral sandbox: 3 runs, 15 console errors, 6 outbound POSTs of which 3 were to non-whitelisted hosts, and a flagged destination mismatch.

Regulatory Verification Notes

There are no legal, terms, privacy, about, or contact pages, and the site names no operating entity, so nothing on the site can be tied to a real-world person or company. No licensing or registration claim is made. Because no claim exists, there is nothing to confirm or contradict, and this is a verification gap, not evidence of wrongdoing. No third-party broker or regulatory-database match was found, so no external reputational signal on regulatory standing exists either way. Registration privacy is an administrative matter and does not count against the site. What does weigh here is the combination of a very recently registered domain, an unconfirmed operator, and an active reputation flag, none of which the site's own content offsets. Evidence:

• Site content: no entity name, address, license number, or regulator reference on the only reachable page.
• Registration: registered through Namecheap with a privacy service shielding registrant details; expiry 2027-09-10.
• Transport and hosting: served from AS54113 (Fastly, Inc., US); the TLS certificate is DV-level, issued by YR2 and valid to 2026-12-25, which confirms an encrypted channel but not operator identity.

What to Verify Next

Any party presenting this domain as the home of a service should be asked to prove control of it through an independent, offline route, such as a published statement from a known corporate website or a direct call to a number sourced elsewhere. If a real site is later published, its legal entity, licensing claims, and terms pages should be checked against the relevant public registry before any engagement. The blacklist entries should be re-checked directly with the flagging reputation sources, as listings can change or be delisted after remediation. Official support and contact channels should also be confirmed independently before relying on them. Evidence:

• Homepage: no operator, license, or contact information is published to check against.
• External reputation: the current malicious and suspicious ratings are the specific listings to re-check.
• Registration data: the domain's recent creation date means any long-standing relationship claimed for it cannot be supported by its history.

Summary Verdict

The overall posture is high-caution. A confirmed blacklist hit, a very young domain, and an operator who cannot be connected to any real-world identity outweigh the technically valid encryption and the absence of overtly deceptive page content. The available evidence supports neither a reading of legitimacy nor a finding of active fraud. It supports only the conclusion that the domain carries elevated, unresolved risk.

Infrastructure Integrity

The domain resolves to four edge addresses of the Fastly content-delivery network, and no origin server is observable. Edge-only visibility prevents independent confirmation of what actually stands behind the domain and could allow content to change quickly without any visible signal. The provider and certificate are mainstream, which is a mitigating factor. That protection cannot offset the reputation risk, and shared-tenant addressing means infrastructure quality says little about this particular domain. Unconfirmed heuristics flag fragmented addressing and sparse subdomains on a young domain, and these are consistent with the verdict but are not independently confirmed risks.

Closing Assessment

Use should be limited to read-only viewing. Account login, credential entry, wallet connection, payments, and any download should be avoided, and any message or advertisement directing users to this domain should be treated as unverified until the operator is independently confirmed.

Signals weighed against the site

• AbuseIPDB: 39 reports on hosting IP 185.199.110.153 (GitHub, Inc., Content Delivery Network), 42% confidence. The reports are attributed to shared infrastructure, not specifically to this website.