While the entity is currently pushing aggressive press releases via fintech newswires to establish SEO legitimacy, my analysis of their infrastructure suggests a decoupling between the user interface and actual on-chain execution.
Here are the specific anomalies I have isolated during a forensic trace:
1. The "Closed Loop" Ledger Discrepancy I executed a series of trace requests to map the platform's liquidity routing. In a standard exchange architecture, you expect to see API handshakes with known liquidity providers or distinct hot/cold wallet management on-chain. The SISVIDA architecture appears to operate as a closed loop. The dashboard reflects value changes, but these changes do not correlate with visible TXIDs on the public ledger. The backend behavior is consistent with a "simulation" environment—a database updating integers rather than a protocol interacting with the blockchain.
2. Regulatory and Entity Null Pointers The platform claims global compliance. I ran automated queries against the primary registries where they claim operation (including databases analogous to the SEC and FCA). The return values were null. The corporate entity described in their PR materials does not exist in the jurisdictions cited. It appears the "company" exists solely as a frontend render, without a corresponding legal object in the backend.
3. SEO Injection vs. Technical Debt There is a high volume of paid backlinks ("Reputation Injection") targeting fintech keywords, which contrasts sharply with the generic nature of their frontend code. The site structure appears to be a low-cost, white-label template often associated with "pig butchering" kits, rather than a proprietary stack built for high-frequency trading.
Conclusion If you or your clients are encountering SISVIDA, treat the infrastructure as compromised/non-existent. The "exchange" appears to be a frontend shell designed to ingest deposits without a withdrawal route.