Transparent process · accountable review
The GACS team
Safety information needs clear accountability. Here is how GACS reviews its work and how to reach the team.
Editorial review
Guides, scam explainers and academy material carry an editorial review label. Reviewers check the facts, the cited sources and the safety advice before a page is published or re-dated.
- GACS Editorial Review — Editorial review team
- GACS Research Team — standing analyst group that verifies reports, on-chain evidence and registry entries.
Spotted something wrong? Corrections and appeals are handled under our editorial policy.
Contributors & volunteers
GACS verification work is supported by an open community of researchers, victims, on-chain analysts, and security engineers who file reports and confirm scam patterns. Want to help? Email hello@gacs.app with your background.
Contact
- General: hello@gacs.app
- Security disclosures: security@gacs.app · see /security
- Press & data partnerships: data@gacs.app
- Takedowns, corrections, appeals: see /editorial-policy
How we work
Every entity on the blacklist passes through the verification methodology (3+ independent reports + on-chain or registrar evidence). GACS is advisory-only — we never take payments, never execute trades, and never ask for seed phrases. Follow public updates through the official GACS channels linked in the site footer.
Authoritative sources
Independent primary sources used to check and corroborate the guidance on this page.
FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)Official US channel for reporting internet-enabled fraud and cybercrime.
US Federal Trade Commission — ReportFraudConsumer fraud reporting and published enforcement data.
UK Report FraudUK national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime.
Canadian Anti-Fraud CentreCanada's central repository for fraud reports and scam alerts.