analysing the credibility of a source from the aestetic is maybe not so efficient.
Good scam, and some are even mainstream, use very good media communication, and perfect documents. Some even say that all you need to fool people today is a good website.
Bad website may mean lack of care, lack of serious behavior, or simply lack of budget on communication, and more on development.
It may also mean simply that serious communication is done out of Internet, by face to face.
maybe not worth to consider that question.
reference to funding, to partners, public reports, seems better resources to judge of the credibility of an actor. Anyway absence of verifiable data just mean absence... a company well funded have few reason to communicate until they sell their product.
On the opposite a company which communicate much to get funding, may just need funding.
It is hard to admit some things cannot be decided because we lack of data.
