# Methodology: how we compare Crypto Domain Registrars

Every value comes from a source of the provider, with a verbatim quote and a snapshot; agents capture it, a watcher checks the sources regularly. Scores are calculated deterministically from the data — never by a language model.

## The best service, not the cheapest

We are not a price comparison site. The score answers one question: which service is the best, judged by its features, how well it protects your privacy and how far the provider can be trusted. Price is one criterion among several: a fair price counts in full, only an overpriced one loses points. Whether the best service is worth its price is your call in a second step: sort and filter the list by price.

- What makes a good service weighs most. Each category sets its own criteria and weights and publishes them on its methodology page.
- Costs weigh little and count along fixed price points: a fair price scores in full, an overpriced one loses. A low price never makes up for weak privacy or trust.
- Missing data never helps: an unknown value counts with the typical value of the category (the median), never better. Proofs such as an audit or a no-logs case proven in court count only when we find them.
- Hard limits: weak trust or a very young brand cap the total score, however good the rest looks; so does, for example, a VPN that logs what its users do.
- Absolute, never relative to the best: a score changes only when the product’s own data changes, and 100 does not claim perfection.

## Score weights

| Criterion | Weight |
| --- | --- |
| Costs | 5 % |
| Control & suspension risk | 25 % |
| Anonymity | 25 % |
| Account security | 10 % |
| Jurisdiction | 10 % |
| Trust | 20 % |
| Community | 5 % |

Community counts damped: only the average ratings on App Store, Google Play and Trustpilot, weighted by count, as deviation from the category median, capped to the 5th–95th percentile, neutral below 50 ratings — new registrars are not penalised. Single experience reports, Reddit and X posts do not count, so the score cannot be steered by bought or targeted reviews.

## Value states

- **known**: The value is published and proven by a quote.
- **not published**: The provider does not publish the value (shown as such, never as 0).
- **only in the app**: The value is only visible in the provider’s app.
- **not applicable**: The attribute does not apply to this product.
- **unknown**: We have no proven value yet.

## Is the double s a typo?

No. The double s at the end of our name stands for sourced & synced. sourced: every value has a source, a quote and a snapshot. synced: our monitoring compares every value with its source continuously, and each value carries its check date.

## Sponsoring and affiliate links

Sponsored slots are labelled and have no influence on score or ranking. Affiliate links are marked.

## How we rate jurisdictions

The criterion jurisdiction rates the country of the provider’s legal seat, i.e. the company that holds the customer contract: how far its law protects customers against account suspension, seizure and data requests. A country in no tier counts 50 %. The seat comes from the imprint, terms or company register, with its source.

| Tier | Part | Countries |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Strong protection**: Not in an intelligence-sharing alliance and outside the EU’s cross-border orders: foreign authorities need mutual legal assistance and a domestic court order before data is handed over or a service suspended. | 100 % | Iceland, Switzerland |
| **Offshore**: Small offshore jurisdiction without an intelligence-sharing alliance: foreign requests need mutual legal assistance, but courts and transparency are weaker than in the strongest tier. | 80 % | Panama, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands, St. Kitts & Nevis, Belize |
| **EU/EEA outside the Eyes**: GDPR and court oversight, not in the Fourteen Eyes; within the EU, authorities of other member states can order data directly from providers (e-Evidence). | 60 % | Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Liechtenstein |
| **Nine/Fourteen Eyes**: Member of the Nine or Fourteen Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance: working courts, but close cooperation with foreign authorities. | 40 % | Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden |
| **Five Eyes**: Broad surveillance powers with gag orders, fast takedowns on copyright notices, and domain seizures by court order are common. | 20 % | United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand |
| **High risk**: State access without independent courts or a sanctions risk: authorities can block accounts and domains, sanctions can cut off payments and registries. | 0 % | Russia, Belarus, China, Hong Kong SAR China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba |

---

- **Canonical URL:** https://cryptodomainss.com/en/methodology/
- **As of:** 2 Nov 2026
- **Data licence:** CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Please cite: Source: cryptodomainss.com (cryptovss), as of 2 Nov 2026, https://cryptodomainss.com/en/methodology/