How moderators decide
Every report on KCFR has been seen by a human moderator. This page describes the standards moderators apply when triaging, verifying, and acting on appeals.
Last updated: 09 May 2026
Roles
- TRIAGE. Can mark a report redacted (single-report acceptance) or rejected (implausible / harassment / off-topic).
- REVIEWER. Everything TRIAGE can do, plus verify a cluster — the decision that promotes a report to the verified tier and exposes identifier values unredacted in public search. Also the role required to resolve an appeal.
- ADMIN. Everything REVIEWER can do, plus team management (invite, change role, deactivate), authority-handoff exports, and MFA resets.
Triage criteria
- Plausibility. Does the narrative describe a recognisable scam pattern? Are the identifiers internally consistent (a Pochi paired with a wallet on the right chain)?
- Harassment vs. report. Reports must describe a transaction or attempted transaction — not personal grievances, business disputes, or political accusations.
- Identifier hygiene. Each identifier must be normalised correctly (phones in 254-form, wallet case preserved per chain). The system enforces this on submission; moderators only need to check that the identifier was sensibly chosen.
Verification criteria
A REVIEWER may mark a cluster verified only when at least one of the following holds:
- Two or more independently-filed reports cite the same cluster within a 14-day window and describe consistent modus operandi.
- A trusted partner (KE-CIRT, an exchange’s compliance team, a chain-analysis firm) has independently flagged one or more identifiers in the cluster.
- A court order or other formal finding names the operator behind the cluster.
“Verified” means the registry has corroboration that this is the same operator across multiple reports. It does not mean a legal conviction.
Redaction posture
Identifier values for unverified reports are redacted on every public surface. The unredacted form is visible only inside the moderator UI and only to authenticated moderators. See our methodology for the redaction rules per identifier kind.
Appeals
Anyone whose identifier appears in a published report can file an appeal at Right to reply. Appeals are resolved by REVIEWERs. Possible remedies: dismiss (the report stands), demote-to-redacted (a verified report loses its verified status), or withdraw (the report is removed from public surfaces). Every resolution is audit-logged with the moderator’s identity and rationale.
Conflicts of interest
Moderators must recuse themselves from any report that names a person, business, or wallet they have a personal or financial relationship with. Recusal is informal — leave the report for another moderator to pick up.
Audit trail
Every moderation action — verify, reject, redact, appeal-resolve, role change, moderator deactivation, authority export — writes a row to the audit log with the actor, the subject, the IP-hash of the action, and the relevant before/after state. ADMINs can review the audit log; we do not currently expose it publicly.