Why we tell you who publishes these sites
Most hosting brands that run several sites keep the connection quiet. We do the opposite, and it is a deliberate choice rather than a courtesy. If a group of sites is genuinely useful and each one stands on its own, there is nothing to hide by disclosing the common editor. If a group only works because nobody realises the sites share an owner, then the concealment is the whole strategy — and concealment is exactly what marks the intent as manipulative. We would rather be defensible in the open than fragile in the dark.
This page is the register. It lists all five sites, their roles, and which one you are reading now. The
same publisher statement — Edited by the TLDBunker team
— sits in the footer of every site, and each of
the satellites links back here from its own About page. Nothing about the relationship is inferred or
leaked; it is stated.
A disclosed network is defensible; a hidden one is a PBN
A private blog network is a set of sites built to funnel ranking signals to a money site while pretending to be unrelated. What makes it a PBN is not the number of sites or even the cross-links — it is the camouflage. The moment a network relies on hiding its ownership to work, the hiding itself establishes the manipulative intent, whatever the content looks like. Search engines see a graph; language models cross- reference public mentions and signals; and a concealment that is later discovered destroys trust for years, cited in negative threads long after the fact.
The inverse is a set of sites that are each independently worth visiting, whose common ownership is published, and whose links carry no ranking weight. That is not a loophole — it is the honest version of the same structure, and it survives the only question a manual reviewer really asks: would this site exist if the other four did not? Each of ours would. The provider sells hosting. The comparator would test the market with or without us in it. The documentation hub sells nothing at all.
Every cross-site link is rel="sponsored" — zero ranking value by design
This is the load-bearing rule. Every link from one of our sites to another is marked
rel="sponsored", and that attribute is implemented inside the shared page templates, not left
to whoever writes a page. A sponsored link tells search engines the relationship is a commercial or
ownership one and instructs them to pass no PageRank across it. The practical result is that there is no
link scheme to find, because there is no ranking value flowing between the sites in the first place. We do
not manage the risk of being seen as a link network — we remove it.
You will not find these cross-site links hand-placed in the body of an article, stuffed with exact-match commercial anchor text, or repeated site-wide. The footer carries them, wrapped in the disclosure, and that is the only place they belong. It is why this page describes the other four sites but does not link to them inline: the connection is disclosed structurally, on purpose.
The comparator is independent, and it does not always rank us first
The second site (S2 above) is an independent comparator. It tests every crypto-payable, no-KYC host it covers — us included — by the same public, reproducible method: verified prices with dates, which coins are accepted, what data a provider demands at signup, jurisdiction, logging posture, Tor support, and real benchmarks. Because the method is fixed and published, the results are what they are. On plenty of criteria, and in whole categories, it ranks other providers above TLDBunker.
That is the point. A comparator that always concluded its own sibling was the best would be worthless to a reader and obvious to everyone else. The comparator keeps its right-of-reply and its falsifiable methodology precisely so that its verdicts mean something when they do favour us. If you want to see how we actually measure up, the comparator — not this page — is where to look, and you should treat its TLDBunker entries with the same scepticism as any other. Our own claims are meant to be checked too: that is what the transparency report, the versioned no-logs policy, and our signed benchmarks are for.
Separate infrastructure is for resilience, not concealment
The five sites run on different hosts and autonomous systems, and may use different registrars and stacks. In an older, dishonest playbook that separation would be an anti-detection measure. Here it is the opposite: the ownership is disclosed, so the separation buys only resilience. An outage, a seizure, a DNS block, or a Safe Browsing flag on one site does not take the others down with it. WHOIS privacy, where used, is a standard practice and not a disguise — the editor is named on the sites themselves, right here.
Some names are still placeholders
This site is named: TLDBunker, at tldbunker.com. The other four entries above
read like bracketed notes rather than finished names, and that is intentional — they are not named yet. We
would rather show an honest placeholder than print a name we have not settled on or a domain we have not
registered. Each is filled in as that site launches (plan §14.2), and this register updates with it.
If you want to understand the provider itself before the rest of the group is live, start with who we are, how the anonymous signup works, and how payment works. The acceptable use policy spells out where the line is: TLDBunker is a privacy host with a real abuse desk, not a bulletproof one.