Adieuu: Exposed

Adieuu is a chat product at adieuu.com, with the app at app.adieuu.com. The homepage says only you can read a message, that the operator does not even know you sent one, and that you can self-host the whole platform in your own Amazon Web Services account. The same page's diagram says the server sees that one alias wrote to another. The self-hosting guide, fetched 27 October 2026, puts the idle Amazon bill for that install at about $170 a month, and says a smaller footprint is not on offer.

Checked 27 October 2026. Quotes are from the live marketing pages, the public roadmap, posts the cofounder put on Hacker News and Reddit, and the v0.4.41 tree. That tree is commit 2c21d27d2792c2523c9b32c875c980c51bee2a32, dated 24 October 2026, and it is the main head git ls-remote returned from code.adieuu.com the same day. If a slop cannon can find this much contradiction, with citations, there is likely more under the hood.

On this page

• What the homepage says
• The server that sees the alias
• 99.98 percent, and two failures
• Self-hosting means an AWS bill
• The price list
• Radical transparency, coming soon
• The code you can clone
• Equal, then this
• The October thread
• Dates
• Sources
• Corrections

What the homepage says

The live homepage, www.adieuu.com, opens with: "Whether it's Hello or Goodbye, only you can read it." Under "What's Available Today" it lists direct messages and groups of up to 50 people, file limits, encryption, calls, themes, votes, and this:

All messages and audio/video calls are fully end to end encrypted, resistant to quantum computing and include optional forward secrecy. Only you and your recipients can view the contents.

Further down, under "A new privacy standard":

We're the only platform that completely separates who you are (your Account) from what you say and do (your Alias). We can't read what you said: we don't even know that you said it!

The same section says Adieuu is "the only platform that foundationally separates your Alias and your real info," and the earlier block says "We're the first platform that can comply with nearly all age verification laws without affecting your privacy." The technical box names X25519, ML-KEM-768/1024, HKDF-SHA3-256, ChaCha20-Poly1305, and Ed25519. This page did not audit that cryptography. The sentences around it are checked against the rest of what they publish.

Two more lines from the same homepage:

• "Our source code is publicly auditable today, and our roadmap includes establishing regular, public financial disclosures."
• "Self-host our entire platform in your own AWS infrastructure (now) for personal or non-commercial use, compatible with our desktop client (soon)! Licensed under PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0."

The footer on the marketing pages reads "© 2026 Adieuu LLC."

The server that sees the alias

The homepage diagram, on that same URL, labels the server:

Adieuu Server. Sees only that Alias A sent to Alias B, can't read message contents.

That is the company saying the server knows who sent a message to whom. The headline above it says they do not know that you said it. The diagram is the narrower claim, and it is the one the picture actually draws: delivery metadata stays on the server. "Most metadata" is what the encryption blurb says is covered. The diagram says the alias-to-alias fact is visible.

On 26 October 2026, writing as u/Ok-Discussion-1189 (flair "adieuu.com (dev)"), the same person described the split in comment 19roqyn88bnlx. An account holds "email/phone, payment info." An alias is what you post as. He wrote that a subpoena for a person yields account data, and a subpoena for an alias yields "the E2E encrypted blobs of their messages and the Alias document itself." He also wrote this exception in the same comment: messages are end-to-end encrypted "outside of public Spaces that disable E2EE."

Spaces are not in the "available today" list. The homepage's current group limit there is 50. The roadmap, read the same day, still marks "Spaces (v1)" as "Internal Testing," dated 5 September 2026. The README in the repo says the product supports "full E2EE by default in Conversations and Spaces." On the Reddit thread he wrote that Adieuu has "full E2EE, including in Spaces (no member limit)," and compared that with Signal groups. The feature he is using as the difference is the one the roadmap still lists as internal testing, and the one he says can be switched out of end-to-end encryption when the space is public.

The v0.4.41 tree is stricter than that comment, and it disagrees with the in-app copy in the same tree. apps/api/src/services/space/crud.ts rejects a public Space that asks for encryption: "Public Spaces cannot use Cipher gates or encryption," error INVALID_ENCRYPTION. The English learn text in packages/ui/src/i18n/locales/en/staticPages.ts says public Spaces "can have E2EE enabled for categories or channels," and a later paragraph says "Content within a Space is encrypted." Creating a Space also requires a paid plan ("Upgrade to a paid plan to create a Space"). The platform setting platform-space-creation-enabled is created with the value false, and a missing setting is read as false, so non-admin aliases cannot create one until that flag is turned on. Platform admins are the exception in that function.

The privacy policy shipped in that tree (packages/ui/src/legal/content/privacy.tsx, effective and last updated 23 June 2026) states the unlinkable claim as a fact about the system:

We didn't choose not to link them in our database; we can't.

A later paragraph in the same file names the breach it treats as the remaining path: "The only realistic path to connecting your Account and Alias activity would require simultaneous compromise of our entire infrastructure or source code (the latter of which is publicly auditable)."

README_PII.md in the same commit inventories a path that does not need that breach. Account sessions store the full IP at login. Alias sessions do not. media_uploads.uploadIpAddress stores the full IP at presign time. For avatars, banners, and message attachments, media_uploads.identityId links the upload to an alias. The same table marks scan copies as the exception on that column. The scanHash cell says a join to e2e_media.identityId "enables IP → Alias correlation while row exists." Clean scan rows are deleted after a pass. While the row is there, the join is a field in their own data model.

Media is a second hole, and he described it himself. On 7 July 2026, in comment ow4ddl9:

Adieuu's messaging moderation is optional and you can opt-out for any/all media attachments in messages. Moderation is separate from the E2EE blob, and naturally we can't read or moderate any encrypted content.

When you leave moderation enabled for a message, we do, in fact, use PDQ hashes and compare against Project Arachnid already - but getting a PDQ from an already-encrypted blob is not a thing: we have to have a clear copy of the media to generate the hash, and doing that purely clientside is pointless. If you leave moderation enabled for a message, we upload a copy of the image to a separate S3 bucket, generate a couple different hashes to check against Arachnid's DB, check, and then discard all of it.

The roadmap line for "Encrypted media attachments," marked Released, matches the idea of a scan before delivery: "client-side encryption and automated (optional) safety scanning before delivery." He said they refuse a hash the client computes, because the client could lie (ow4julx). In that comment he also wrote that the opt-out "is always available to users." The price table checked on 27 October 2026 lists "Media content moderation opt-out" on Access and above, and leaves it off the free row. The same pricing page says "privacy is never an upsell" and "privacy & security settings are never behing a paywall." The misspelling is on the page.

The v0.4.41 ops note, docs/ops/conv-scan-cleartext-retention.md, describes a narrower scanner than the July comment. Scanning does not run unless enable_media_stack is true and at least one hash provider is configured. Where that stack is on, visual attachments are scanned by default. The composer starts with moderationEnabled set to true (packages/ui/src/components/composer/useComposerAttachments.ts). The opt-out toggle is shown only when the conversation has allowSkipModeration: true. That flag is absent by default. A group admin, or either person in a DM, has to turn it on before a sender can skip. What gets uploaded for the check is not the file the recipient decrypts. The note says the scan uses "client-produced scan material" (JPEG thumbnails and frame grids) under uploads/conv_scan/, and that a modified client can "submit non-corresponding scan material" while the encrypted blob is something else. "The server cannot detect the mismatch without the plaintext," and the note says that limitation is not treated as a bug. His July comment said "getting a PDQ from an already-encrypted blob is not a thing," so they upload a clear copy, and that doing the hash purely on the client is pointless. The note in the release he shipped on 24 October says the clear copy is a JPEG the client produced, and that the server cannot tell whether that JPEG is the image inside the encrypted blob.

The privacy policy's line for the same feature is "only when content moderation is enabled by you or the Space you are adding Content to." In this tree the composer default is on, and the skip control is hidden until someone with rights enables it. The comparison matrix in packages/ui/src/pages/account/subscription/types.ts lists moderationOptOut on Access and not on Free. updateAllowSkipModeration in apps/api/src/services/conversation/group-settings.ts checks that the caller is a participant and, for a group, an admin. It does not check the plan. The price table sells the opt-out. The handler that writes the flag does not read the table.

99.98 percent, and two failures

In comment 19roqxt7argw2, posted just before the longer architecture comment, he summarized age checks:

We normally don't need ID at all - 99.98% (yes, literally) of our users today were able to verify with email alone, and when we do need more it's through privacy-first third-parties that discard immediately and give us NO personal info, not even your age (only pass/fail).

The long comment gives the count those words are about: "Of our current ~75 users, only 2 have failed email verification." Two failures out of about 75 is about 2.7 percent, so about 97 percent passed. 99.98 percent of 75 people is a fraction of a person. Both sentences are his, on the same thread, the same evening. He added "yes, literally" to the percentage.

The method, in his words, is a lookup: "there's enough metadata available on the open web that for most adults that might use Adieuu, we can look up your email and verify age with information that's already publicly available." The account still stores the email. The homepage says a database breach cannot connect activity to "your real info." The email is real info, and it sits on the account. What he claims is cryptographic separation between that account and the alias, which is a different sentence from "we don't have the email."

When email lookup fails, he names two vendors, AgeMin and VerifyMy, and says their APIs return pass or fail, that Adieuu does not learn the age, and that the vendors "discard any used material, photos, video, etc immediately." The self-hosting guide's secret list includes VERIFYMY_API_KEY, VERIFYMY_API_SECRET, AGEMIN_PRIVATE_KEY, and AGEMIN_WEBHOOK_PUBLIC_KEY. The live privacy URL, app.adieuu.com/legal-policies/privacy, is a JavaScript shell, so the policy text below is the copy in the v0.4.41 tree, not a render of that URL.

In that tree the background check is a vendor call, and the server attaches the account's stored email to it unless a hosted URL was already issued. age-verification.service.ts sets input.userInfo = { email: user.email } when the account has an email, and adds the phone when the account has one. The id sent with the session is the account's user id (external_user_id on the VerifyMy request). Agemin maps email_age_check to its email method. A comment in agemin.provider.ts calls a non-success "Agemin's 'no usable footprint' outcome," error type could_not_estimate_age, and says that result is "routine for any email without web history." verifymy.provider.ts maps the same slug to Email and, when user_info.email is present, puts an encrypted copy of that email on the outbound request. The privacy policy names VerifyMy and not AgeMin. It says "You submit information directly to them" and that Adieuu receives "a pass/fail result and the jurisdiction." It also says Adieuu asked VerifyMy, as a test, to return more fields, and that VerifyMy declined. The contract itself was not read. The code that starts the check sends the email Adieuu already stored.

He also wrote, in the same essay, that a verified person "can then go and bot." The June 2024 product pitch, below, was a human-only network. The 2026 comment is the later, smaller claim: verification raises the cost of a new account, and it does not stop the person behind a passed check from automating it.

Self-hosting means an AWS bill

The homepage offers self-hosting "in your own AWS infrastructure (now)." The guide it points at is docs/SELF-HOSTING.md. The file's Last-Modified header on 27 October 2026 was 29 August 2026. The opening callout:

Looking for a two-line Docker run-and-gun? Sorry to disappoint. This isn't a tiny app - you are deploying a platform. Minimum AWS cost with current stack, all optionals disabled and no traffic (as of early 2026) is ~$170 USD/mo on-demand. We don't currently have plans to support other cloud providers, or offering minimal footprint options (though we'll accept PRs that might better suit community needs).

That $170 is their number, for their stack, with the optional pieces off and with nobody using it. It is an on-demand Amazon floor from early 2026, not a measured invoice from this check. Read against the rest of the guide, it is also the floor before the pieces they tell you to buy outside Amazon.

The Terraform they ship, described in that guide and in docs/deployment/aws.md, creates a VPC, two ECS Fargate services (API and chat), an application load balancer, ElastiCache, S3, CloudFront, and a web application firewall. Tasks sit in private subnets. Outbound traffic goes through a NAT gateway. The architecture note says one NAT "minimizes cost" and that a NAT per availability zone is the more available choice. MongoDB is "explicitly not in this stack." You supply it. The guide's prerequisite line is "MongoDB (Atlas M10+ recommended, or self-hosted)." Font Awesome Pro is also a prerequisite: the company's own icon licence "does not extend to you." Node.js 26 or newer, pnpm 10, Terraform 1.5, Docker, and an AWS account with enough access to apply the stack are the rest of the list. Stripe, LiveKit, VerifyMy, and CyberTipline credentials are in the secrets table when you turn those features on.

A chat for a household, a club, or a friend group fits on one small virtual machine. This guide does not offer that machine. It offers Amazon's production shape, idle, at a published floor of about $170 a month, and then a database cluster and a commercial icon licence on top of the floor. The same paragraph says they do not plan another cloud, and they do not plan a smaller footprint. The repo does contain a local Docker Compose path for Mongo, Redis, LiveKit, and Caddy. The guide sends you there for development on localhost. Packaged desktop builds do not offer that local instance. The supported server install is the cloud one.

The desktop client can point at your API. The guide then forbids the obvious next step: "Distributing a custom client that removes Adieuu (Global) as an option (or in any way tampers with its functionality) is expressly prohibited," under the additional terms attached to the licence. A self-hosted server is allowed. A client that only talks to your server is not, if you ship that client to other people.

He has described the hosted product's media cost separately. On the pricing thread, comment p5x79se: "a 15 min call with only 5 participants, 2 of which are streaming HD video, costs around $0.35." That is a usage argument for subscriptions on their servers. The self-host figure is the bill for standing the platform up before any of those calls happen. On 26 October 2026 he put the user count at about 75. The install published for a copy of that service is still the production layout.

The price list

adieuu.com/pricing on 27 October 2026. Annual billing through Stripe. The free column is labeled "Free but Unsustainable," and the cell says they "can't make any guarantees how long" the free tier lasts.

Footnote 1: votes and some perks are "Subject to Adieuu staff final discretion and moderation, of course." Footnote 2: the calls "Include no right to control; customer role is advisory only." Footnote 3: federation, and the etched Founder message, are "in active development and may not yet be fully available as described." The homepage says "we use your votes to prioritize what the community wants." The roadmap item "For Democracy! Vote ... on EVERYTHING!" is status "Roadmapped," not shipped. Staff discretion is the rule printed on the price table.

The FAQ says a price increase is expected "at our 1.0.X launch," lifetime options end when beta ends, and a renewal price is kept "for up to two years following the end of the lower-priced term, as long as you maintain the subscription" with no interruptions. The comparison header says "subscription costs are grandfathered." The FAQ is the two-year version of that word.

The homepage's "lowest filesize limits start at over 1.3GB" is the Access cell. Free has no upload size because free has no uploads. "Largest Filesize Limits" and "Everything: Encrypted," including video calls, sit under "What's Available Today" on a product whose free row is text, GIFs, and voice.

He wrote on the pricing thread that they "still lose money on all of our paid subscriptions today." That can be true and still leave the free tier labeled unsustainable, the moderation opt-out on the paid rows, and the self-host floor at about $170 a month before the database.

Radical transparency, coming soon

adieuu.com/transparency is headed by a promise of radical transparency "in our code, our finances, and our decision-making." The finances section: "This is coming soon." The content-reports section: "We plan to make all platform-level content reports public," with exceptions. Legal-request totals are all zero, "Year to date, as of August 25, 2026," with a CSV at /transparency/legal-requests.csv. The sitemap's lastmod on that page is 10 October 2026. The numbers on the page still stop at 25 August.

The roadmap item "Public Financial Disclosures" is dated 1 November 2026 and marked "Planned." Its text: "Begin publishing at least annual (maybe biannual or quarterly, depending on effort and constraints) financial disclosures to the public. We provide no guarantees as to exact dates or data included." Four days before that date, the transparency page still says coming soon, and the roadmap withholds a guarantee about the date and the contents.

The warrant-canary index lists four canaries, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States, each "Issued August 25, 2026." The page says a canary is "a regularly published statement" and that a current canary means the statement still holds. It does not print an update interval. On 27 October 2026 the index still showed 25 August. A long list (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Hungary, India, New Zealand, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Uganda, the United Kingdom, Zimbabwe) is labeled "Not permitted," with a sentence each asserting that the country's law forbids a canary. This check did not read the linked "why" pages or the statutes. The index asks you to treat those absences as law, not as silence.

The transparency page's first heading is "Open Source," and the sentence under it is "Our codebase is openly auditable." The licence file in the repo begins "PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0," and it says additional terms in LICENSE-ADDENDUM.md are conditions of the licence. PolyForm Noncommercial grants use for noncommercial purposes. The homepage already says the self-host offer is "for personal or non-commercial use." Calling that "open source" on the transparency page uses a name the licence does not match. The code can be read. A commercial fork is outside the grant they published.

The code you can clone

The README says the canonical source is code.adieuu.com/adieuu-llc/adieuu-2026, "clonable by anyone, no account required." On 27 October 2026, git ls-remote against that URL returned two heads without a login: main at 2c21d27d2792c2523c9b32c875c980c51bee2a32, and development at d081e5f9108c25ba7f8ac07de3bc74eb5813d044. Raw file URLs for the README, the licence, the self-hosting guide, and the AWS architecture note returned the files. The HTML view of the same repo returned an Anubis challenge, "Making sure you're not a bot," in front of Forgejo, with CloudFront behind it. Reading a file in the browser and cloning the git URL are different doors. One of them is a bot wall.

The old GitHub location is gone. https://api.github.com/repos/Adieuu-LLC/adieuu-2026 returned 404 the same day. He described the move in comment p2kioks: "the lack of transparency or even notice from the Github team before we're suppressed," then "We've cancelled all of our billing with them and won't ever be returning." In comment p620q5i he described the replacement as "self-hosted Forgejo (semi-public, with auth + push/etc behind Tailscale) + BuildKite." The October README and the clone check above are later than that comment: anonymous clone of the heads worked. Push, and whatever still sits behind Tailscale, was not tested.

The README stack table lists the desktop app as Electron. The roadmap marks "Desktop app & auto-update" as Released, and the line is "Native Electron builds for Windows, macOS, and Linux." The download page offers 0.4.41, released 24 October 2026. Windows: "not yet code-signed," and the page tells you to click through SmartScreen. macOS: "not yet notarized," arm64 only, and the page tells you how to get past Gatekeeper. Linux builds are amd64 deb, x86_64 AppImage, and x86_64 RPM. The page says "Our devs (and all company machines) use Linux exclusively." There is no Intel Mac build on that page.

The roadmap's iOS item, status "Roadmapped," is titled "iOS App" and the body that follows is "Add full Android support with". The Android item above it uses the same sentence on purpose. The iOS row is the Android sentence again.

The README's AI section says the team uses language models in local development, that humans review the code, that the app does not offer AI features, and that "all of this intro section and most of this README was hand-written by a human." On Reddit he said the team of four uses AI "much like a junior engineer" for repeatable work, with controls he describes as sandboxes and no production credentials. This check did not review the commits.

Equal, then this

On 18 June 2024 the product on Hacker News was not this chat app. Item 40713582 is titled "Equal - Human-only social network" and links wetheequal.com. A reader, jasonvorhe, wrote that adieuu.com did not work, and quoted the waitlist: "Your individual data is never sold," and a promise to "operate closer to a B-Corp" while "registered as a for-profit company," in the name of "radical transparency."

The reply is from HN user adefee, comment 40718158: "I'm Andrew, one of Adieuu's cofounders." He called the missing site a "horrible irony in preaching tranparency." On the data sentence, he wrote that they "haven't run the copy by any attorneys" and that he "wasn't sure what all fell under 'selling data'," then: "we have no intention of selling any user data, period." On the company form: "Our founding team has never run non-profits before, so for-profit is more of our wheelhouse," and "naive as we are about Non-Profits." He listed two cofounders, himself (linkedin.com/in/adefee/) and Lexi Sprague (linkedin.com/in/lexisprague/), a team under five, based in the US, no funding, and "No revenue from Equal yet (product not yet launched)."

The current homepage does not mention Equal or wetheequal.com. The chat product's public company line is Adieuu LLC. A commercial directory, texas-biz.com/co/adieuu-llc, which states that it is not the Texas Secretary of State, lists ADIEUU LLC, Texas tax ID 32099394630, SOS file 0805958640, charter date 23 March 2025, Tarrant County, status Active, registered office 1617 Park Place Ave Ste 110, Fort Worth, TX 76110. That address is the directory's registered office. This check did not confirm anyone works there. The charter date is nine months after the Hacker News post in which he said they were still setting the company site up. Other Texas companies whose names are only "Adieu" or "Adie" are different records, and this page does not attach them.

RDAP for ADIEUU.COM, read 27 October 2026 from rdap.verisign.com: registered 10 October 2019, expiration 10 October 2028, last changed 22 August 2026, status client delete, renew, transfer, and update prohibited. Nameservers are Amazon's (NS-1144.AWSDNS-15.ORG, NS-1711.AWSDNS-21.CO.UK, NS-478.AWSDNS-59.COM, NS-644.AWSDNS-16.NET). The public registrant card in that response is GoDaddy.com, LLC, the registrar. The 2019 registration date is not, by itself, the 2025 LLC.

The October thread

On 25 October 2026, u/CinnamonPublishing posted "Notice for developers of Discord alternatives". Andrew answered at length. On 26 October, u/Any_Illustrator360 posted "Please look deeper into Adieuu and its management before installing it," pointing back at that thread. A removed post by the same author went up the same hour. This page uses Andrew's comments and the comment he was answering, not the tone of the replies around them.

u/Any_Illustrator360 compressed his position into a paragraph he attributed to the project: plans for AI moderation, a one-press ID system "which could be tooled to work at the kernel level," federation and self-hosting that "will not bypass" that, "a shocking amount of data," and a promise to "give all of that data over without question" if subpoenaed. Andrew's reply, 19rp4kjfjdjr4, calls that paragraph "pretty much bullshit," says he had not claimed a kernel mechanism or a way around self-hosting, and says the other side feels "bad-faith or disingenuous." The kernel sentence and the "without question" sentence are the other user's words. He rejected them.

What he did write, in the same exchange:

• Self-hosting "doesn't make you immune" from age-verification rules "unless you are the sole user," and "you can turn off anything (including age verification)" because the code is available. He compared future enforcement to early-2000s torrent notices sent to ISPs. That is his analogy, not a statute quoted on the page.
• "We offer self-hosted today." Most people will not do it. "We may offer federation in a similar model in the future."
• A team of four, "all of us sr+," and "I personally have over 20yrs exp in software, most of that in privacy/security."
• AI moderation is not in the product "today." He has said they would consider a limited version if manual review stopped scaling. The README says no AI features in the app.

The comment that advertises "full E2EE, including in Spaces (no member limit)" is 19rnxctvzgg1t, from him, on that thread. The roadmap status for Spaces is in the section above.

Dates

Sources

Opened 27 October 2026 unless a line says otherwise.

• adieuu.com homepage. Pricing. Download (0.4.41). Roadmap. Transparency. Warrant canary index. Sitemap (lastmod 10 October 2026 on the URLs it lists). legal-requests.csv.
• File names above open the copy on this site, under /adieuu/sources/. Each file is paired here with that copy and the same path on code.adieuu.com, raw, at commit 2c21d27d2792c2523c9b32c875c980c51bee2a32. The HTML view of the repo returned Anubis on 27 October 2026. git ls-remote on https://code.adieuu.com/adieuu-llc/adieuu-2026.git.
  • LICENSE: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • LICENSE-ADDENDUM.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • README.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • README_PII.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/age-verification/age-verification.service.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/age-verification/agemin.provider.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/age-verification/verifymy.provider.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/conversation/group-settings.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/platform-settings.service.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • apps/api/src/services/space/crud.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • docs/SELF-HOSTING.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • docs/deployment/aws.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • docs/ops/conv-scan-cleartext-retention.md: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • packages/ui/src/components/composer/useComposerAttachments.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • packages/ui/src/i18n/locales/en/staticPages.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • packages/ui/src/legal/content/privacy.tsx: copy, code.adieuu.com
  • packages/ui/src/pages/account/subscription/types.ts: copy, code.adieuu.com
• GitHub API: Adieuu-LLC/adieuu-2026, HTTP 404.
• Reddit, via the Arctic Shift copy of the comments (reddit.com JSON from this network is blocked). Thread 1xfgz90, including 19roqxt7argw2, 19roqyn88bnlx, 19rnxctvzgg1t, 19rp2xutywqir, 19rp4kjfjdjr4. Follow-up post 1xgbrrr. Earlier comments ow4ddl9 and ow4julx, p5x79se, p2kioks, p620q5i. Account u/Ok-Discussion-1189.
• Hacker News 40713582, jasonvorhe's 40716107, Andrew's 40718158.
• RDAP for ADIEUU.COM via rdap.verisign.com.
• Company directory texas-biz.com/co/adieuu-llc. That site says it is not a government site.
• Privacy policy URL, fetched as an application shell. The policy quoted above is the 23 June 2026 text in the v0.4.41 tree. Paid-services terms in that tree were not used for a claim on this page.

Corrections

This page records what those URLs said on 27 October 2026. A later edit on adieuu.com does not rewrite the text quoted here. A correction to this page belongs next to the sentence it fixes, with the date of the check.

Not verified, and left out of the claims above: the text of each warrant canary, the software bill of materials, and the vulnerability disclosure for 0.4.41. The privacy policy quoted here is the copy in commit 2c21d27. The live app URL still returned a shell, so this page does not claim the app was serving that file byte for byte on 27 October. The $170 figure is the guide's early-2026 on-demand estimate, not an Amazon invoice. The Texas filing details are from a republisher, not a Secretary of State printout pulled directly. AgeMin's and VerifyMy's contracts were not read. The cryptographic design was not audited. Whether their production database matches README_PII.md, and whether platform-space-creation-enabled is still false in production, are questions the code answers only as defaults. The guide says the public stack is not quite identical to what they run, "especially w.r.t WAF, ALBs, and some networking & security configs."