Analyzing a broker like Aphelion (official website: https://aphelion.org/) based on online complaints, risk assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting analysis, social media presence, red flags, regulatory status, and other factors requires a structured approach. Below is a comprehensive analysis based on available information and critical evaluation, tailored to the specified criteria. Note that the analysis is limited to publicly accessible data and may not reflect the full operational status of Aphelion, as some details are incomplete or ambiguous.

1. Overview of Aphelion ¶

Aphelion’s official website (https://aphelion.org/) describes it as a platform aiming to address issues in cryptocurrency trading, such as “high fees, delays, frozen funds, locked trades, and hijacked tokens.” The site suggests a focus on decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) trading, likely built on blockchain technology (previously associated with the NEO blockchain). However, the website content is sparse, and the exact nature of its services (e.g., whether it operates as a broker, exchange, or wallet) is unclear from the provided data. Other entities with the name “Aphelion” exist in different industries (e.g., Aphelion Digital Corp, Aphelion Cyber, Aphelion Capital), which raises concerns about potential brand confusion. This analysis focuses solely on the Aphelion associated with https://aphelion.org/, presumed to be a cryptocurrency-related platform.

2. Online Complaint Information ¶

No specific online complaints directly tied to https://aphelion.org/ were identified in the provided data or through general web searches. However, the lack of complaints could indicate either a low user base, a relatively new or inactive platform, or effective issue resolution. Key observations:

• CryptoSlate and ICOholder Reviews: Aphelion is described as a P2P trading platform (DEX) built on the NEO blockchain, with no explicit mention of user complaints. Reviews highlight its user-friendly mobile wallet and competitive fee structure (0.07% for market takers, 0% for market makers). However, these reviews are dated (2017–2018) and may not reflect current operations.
• Scamadviser and Cointelligence: Aphelion-related domains (e.g., aphelion.dk) have been rated as “legit and safe” based on automated analysis, but these assessments are not specific to aphelion.org and emphasize the need for user vetting. No scam reports were noted, but the crypto sector’s high scam prevalence warrants caution.
• IsThisCoinAScam: The site invites user feedback on Aphelion’s legitimacy but lacks concrete complaint data. The absence of negative signals does not confirm trustworthiness, as it may reflect low visibility. Risk Indicator: The absence of complaints is inconclusive. Low visibility or inactivity could mask unresolved issues, and the crypto sector’s anonymity increases scam risks.

3. Risk Level Assessment ¶

The risk level of engaging with Aphelion (https://aphelion.org/) appears moderate to high based on the following factors:

• Sparse Website Content: The official website provides minimal information about services, team, or operations, which is a red flag for transparency. Legitimate brokers typically offer detailed disclosures.
• Historical Context: Aphelion was active around 2018 as a NEO-based DEX with a native token (APH). Its current operational status is unclear, as recent updates are absent. Inactive or abandoned crypto projects pose risks of scams or loss of funds.
• Crypto Sector Risks: Decentralized exchanges face risks like smart contract vulnerabilities, phishing, and lack of customer support. Aphelion’s P2P model may reduce centralized control but increases user responsibility for security.
• Lack of User Feedback: Minimal user reviews or community engagement suggests low adoption, which could indicate an untested or unreliable platform. Risk Level: Moderate to high due to lack of transparency, unclear operational status, and inherent crypto risks. Users should proceed with extreme caution.

4. Website Security Tools ¶

Evaluating the security of https://aphelion.org/ involves checking for standard security protocols and potential vulnerabilities:

• SSL Certificate: The provided data does not confirm whether aphelion.org has a valid SSL certificate. However, related Aphelion domains (e.g., aphelion.dk) have valid SSL certificates, suggesting a likelihood that aphelion.org follows suit. SSL is critical for securing user data transmission.
• Website Activity: The aphelion.org site is active but lacks detailed content, which may indicate minimal maintenance or an incomplete platform. Inactive or poorly maintained sites are more vulnerable to hacking or phishing.
• Cookie and Tracking Policies: No specific information on aphelion.org’s cookie or tracking policies was found. Related Aphelion entities (e.g., aphelion.in) use cookies for tracking but allow opt-outs, aligning with GDPR standards. Users should verify aphelion.org’s privacy policy for similar protections.
• Vulnerability Checks: No data on penetration testing, code audits, or security certifications for aphelion.org was found. For a crypto platform, smart contract audits are essential to prevent exploits, but no evidence of such audits exists. Red Flag: Lack of transparency about security measures (e.g., SSL status, audits) is concerning for a platform handling financial transactions. Users should use tools like SSL Labs or VirusTotal to independently verify site security.

5. WHOIS Lookup ¶

WHOIS data for https://aphelion.org/ was not directly provided, limiting insights into domain ownership, registration date, or registrar. General observations based on related Aphelion domains:

• Aphelion-Related Domains: Other Aphelion entities (e.g., aphelion-digital.com, aphelion.in) provide registered addresses (e.g., Delaware, USA; Indore, India). No such details were found for aphelion.org, which raises transparency concerns.
• Domain Age: The aphelion-ps.com domain was reportedly dropped in 2016, suggesting some Aphelion-related domains may be inactive or repurposed. Without WHOIS data, aphelion.org’s domain age and history are unknown.
• Privacy Protection: Many crypto platforms use WHOIS privacy services to hide owner details, which is common but can obscure accountability. If aphelion.org uses such a service, it may complicate trust verification. Risk Indicator: Absence of WHOIS data for aphelion.org is a red flag. Users should perform a WHOIS lookup via tools like ICANN or Whois.com to verify domain details.

6. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

No specific IP or hosting data for https://aphelion.org/ was provided. Insights from related Aphelion entities include:

• Aphelion Consulting AB (AS62001): This Swedish entity operates an autonomous system (ASN) with IP addresses hosted across a single IP, suggesting centralized hosting. However, this is unrelated to aphelion.org’s crypto focus.
• Aphelion-Group.com: This Mauritius-based entity emphasizes secure hosting in data centers with redundant power and connectivity. If aphelion.org uses similar infrastructure, it could indicate robust hosting, but no evidence confirms this.
• Hosting Risks: Crypto platforms hosted on shared or poorly secured servers are vulnerable to attacks. Without IP data, aphelion.org’s hosting provider, location, and security measures are unknown. Red Flag: Lack of IP/hosting details for aphelion.org prevents assessment of server security or reliability. Users should use tools like IPinfo.io or Censys to analyze hosting.

7. Social Media Presence ¶

Aphelion’s social media presence is limited and outdated, based on available data:

• Facebook (Aphelion Inc.): A Toronto-based Aphelion Inc. focuses on cloud-based SaaS, not crypto. Its Facebook page has 196 likes and minimal activity (e.g., a 2024 New Year post), indicating low engagement. This is unrelated to aphelion.org.
• LinkedIn (Aphelion – ION Group): A Swedish Aphelion, part of ION Group, specializes in FX trading technology, not crypto. It has 425 followers but no direct link to aphelion.org.
• Aphelion.org-Specific Social Media: No mention of active social media accounts (e.g., Twitter/X, Telegram) for aphelion.org was found. Historical data references a Telegram channel for Aphelion’s ICO (2018), but its current status is unknown.
• Engagement: The crypto community often relies on platforms like Twitter/X or Discord for updates. Aphelion’s apparent lack of active social media presence suggests low community engagement or inactivity. Red Flag: Minimal or outdated social media presence is concerning for a crypto platform, as active engagement is critical for transparency and user trust. Users should search Twitter/X or Telegram for recent Aphelion-related activity.

8. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

Several red flags and risk indicators emerge from the analysis:

• Lack of Transparency: The aphelion.org website provides minimal details about services, team, or regulatory compliance, which is atypical for legitimate brokers/exchanges.
• Unclear Operational Status: Aphelion was active in 2018 but lacks recent updates, raising concerns about whether it is still operational or abandoned. Inactive crypto projects are prone to scams.
• Brand Confusion: Multiple entities use the “Aphelion” name across industries (e.g., cybersecurity, healthcare, aerospace). This could lead to user confusion or intentional misrepresentation.
• No Regulatory Information: No evidence suggests Aphelion is registered with financial regulators (e.g., SEC, FCA, CFTC), which is critical for brokers handling user funds. Unregulated platforms pose significant risks.
• Limited User Feedback: The absence of recent reviews or community discussion suggests low adoption, which may indicate an untested or unreliable platform.
• ICO Risks: Aphelion’s 2018 ICO included unverified team members, raising concerns about accountability. Past ICOs are often associated with scams or failed projects. Risk Indicator: Multiple red flags (transparency, inactivity, brand confusion, lack of regulation) suggest high risk. Users should avoid engaging until more clarity is provided.

9. Website Content Analysis ¶

The content on https://aphelion.org/ is minimal but provides some insights:

• Claims: The site states it “ends high fees, delays, frozen funds, locked trades, and hijacked tokens,” suggesting a focus on user-friendly P2P trading. However, no technical details (e.g., blockchain used, smart contract specifics) are provided.
• Design and Functionality: The sparse content and lack of detailed sections (e.g., about, team, FAQs) indicate an underdeveloped or placeholder site. Legitimate brokers typically have robust, informative websites.
• Privacy Policy: No privacy policy or terms of use were referenced for aphelion.org, unlike related entities (e.g., aphelion-digital.com), which comply with GDPR/CCPA. This is a significant oversight for a financial platform.
• KYC/AML: Historical data mentions KYC verification for Aphelion’s ICO, but no current policies are outlined. Brokers must enforce KYC/AML to prevent fraud, and the absence of such details is concerning. Red Flag: The website’s lack of detailed content, policies, and transparency undermines trust. Users should demand clear disclosures before engaging.

10. Regulatory Status ¶

No evidence indicates that Aphelion (https://aphelion.org/) is registered or compliant with financial regulators:

• Crypto Regulation: In jurisdictions like the U.S., UK, or EU, crypto brokers/exchanges must register with bodies like the SEC, FCA, or ESMA and comply with AML/KYC regulations. Aphelion’s lack of regulatory mentions suggests it operates unregulated.
• Historical Context: Aphelion’s ICO (2018) included regulatory compliance updates, but no current status is provided. Unregulated platforms risk sudden shutdowns or legal action.
• Related Entities: Aphelion Digital Corp (aphelion-digital.com) emphasizes U.S. regulatory compliance for clients, but this is unrelated to aphelion.org’s crypto focus. Risk Indicator: Operating without clear regulatory oversight is a major red flag. Users should verify Aphelion’s status with regulators like the SEC or FCA before engaging.

11. User Precautions ¶

To safely interact with Aphelion (https://aphelion.org/), users should take the following precautions:

• Verify Website Security: Check for a valid SSL certificate using tools like SSL Labs. Avoid entering personal/financial data on unsecured sites.
• Conduct WHOIS Lookup: Use ICANN or Whois.com to confirm domain ownership, registration date, and registrar. Privacy-protected domains warrant extra scrutiny.
• Research Regulatory Status: Check with regulators (e.g., SEC, FCA) to confirm Aphelion’s licensing. Avoid unregulated platforms.
• Test with Small Transactions: If engaging, start with minimal funds to assess platform reliability. Use a dedicated wallet for crypto transactions.
• Monitor Social Media: Search Twitter/X, Telegram, or Reddit for recent user feedback or scam reports. Inactive communities are a red flag.
• Enable 2FA and Security Measures: If Aphelion offers accounts, enable two-factor authentication (2FA) and use strong passwords.
• Avoid Phishing: Verify the URL (https://aphelion.org/) to avoid fake sites. Check for misspellings or unusual domains (e.g., aphelion-ps.com).
• Backup Funds: Store crypto in a secure, non-custodial wallet. Avoid leaving funds on exchanges long-term. Recommendation: Given the red flags, users should avoid Aphelion until more transparency and regulatory clarity are provided.

12. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

The name “Aphelion” is used by multiple unrelated entities, increasing the risk of user confusion or scams:

• Aphelion Digital Corp (aphelion-digital.com): A U.S.-based firm (Delaware) specializing in regulatory compliance and marketing for social discovery platforms. No crypto focus.
• Aphelion Cyber (aphelioncyber.com): A cybersecurity firm offering threat detection and compliance solutions. No crypto connection.
• Aphelion Capital (aphelioncapital.net): A healthcare venture capital firm investing in medical devices and digital health. No crypto involvement.
• Aphelion Aerospace (aphelionaerospace.com): A nanosatellite and propulsion company. No financial or crypto focus.
• Aphelion – ION Group (LinkedIn): A Swedish FX trading tech firm, part of ION Group. No crypto relevance.
• Aphelion (Mauritius, aphelion-group.com): A cloud and managed services provider with no apparent crypto operations. Risk Indicator: Brand confusion could lead users to interact with the wrong platform or fall for phishing sites mimicking aphelion.org. Scammers may exploit the name’s prevalence across industries. Users must verify the exact URL and service type.

13. Conclusion and Recommendations ¶

Based on the analysis, Aphelion (https://aphelion.org/) presents significant risks due to:

• Minimal website transparency and content.
• Unclear operational status (possibly inactive since 2018).
• Lack of regulatory oversight or compliance details.
• Multiple red flags (e.g., no WHOIS data, limited social media, brand confusion).
• Inherent risks of the crypto sector (e.g., scams, smart contract vulnerabilities). Risk Level: High. Aphelion does not provide sufficient evidence of legitimacy or operational reliability. The platform’s sparse online presence and lack of recent activity suggest it may be inactive or abandoned, increasing scam risks. Recommendations:
• Avoid Engagement: Do not deposit funds or share personal data until Aphelion provides clear transparency (e.g., team details, regulatory status, security audits).
• Independent Verification: Use tools like WHOIS, SSL Labs, and IPinfo.io to assess domain and hosting security. Check regulatory databases for licensing.
• Monitor Updates: Watch for recent social media activity or community feedback on platforms like Twitter/X or Reddit.
• Clarify Brand: Ensure interactions are with https://aphelion.org/, not other “Aphelion” entities. Verify service type (e.g., DEX, broker).
• Alternative Platforms: Consider established, regulated crypto exchanges (e.g., Coinbase, Binance) with proven track records and active support. Users should exercise extreme caution and prioritize platforms with transparent operations, regulatory compliance, and active community engagement. If further details about Aphelion emerge, this assessment may be revisited.

Note: If you have specific details (e.g., recent user experiences, WHOIS data, or regulatory filings) or want me to focus on a particular aspect, please provide them, and I can refine the analysis. For real-time checks (e.g., WHOIS, SSL status), I recommend using the suggested tools directly, as my data is limited to provided references and general knowledge up to April 25, 2025.