Google's spam policy names "excessive link exchanges" as link spam, and its own example is "Link to me and I'll link to you." The wording is broad on purpose. What it is aimed at is links traded as favors: swaps, partner pages, links that exist because two site owners shook hands rather than because a reader needed them. Search engine spam policies are eligibility criteria for a search index, not a contract anyone signed, and the remedy for breaking them is ranking, not court.
This network is built around the opposite mechanic. Nothing here is swapped. A link happens when a passage in a real article genuinely calls for a source, and our matching finds the page that answers it. Your content earns its links through relevance: the paragraph fits or the link does not happen, and no plan, payment, or friendship changes that. Links land inside articles that were getting written anyway, under anchors that read like citations, and linking back and forth between two sites is refused outright.
That is why we call this low risk. A link that reads as a real citation, in a real article, on a reviewed site, is the kind of link search engines say they want. Every rule below exists to keep each link individually defensible on those terms.
Why the caps are so low
One link per article, ever. At most 10 suggestions open at a time on a domain. A 90-day cooldown between any two sites. Every threshold is set toward paranoia rather than volume, because slow and defensible beats fast and obvious. A faster version of this product would be a worse one.
What we do not do
No paid links, no anchor text you choose, no guaranteed placements, no bulk. About half of applicants do not get in, and every link is rechecked monthly for 6 months. You cannot buy your way to the front, and there is no tier that unlocks looser rules. Paid plans buy volume and tooling, never exemptions.
No ranking, traffic, or authority outcome is promised, and no number of links is promised. What you pay for is the matching software.
Low risk is not no risk
Google's wording is broad and its judgments are its own. Nobody can promise you zero risk from any link building, and anyone who does is selling something. What we can promise is that every rule in this network pushes each link toward being the thing the policy says it wants: a citation a reader would defend.
Our conclusion is that a link which reads as a real citation, in a real article, on a real site, is a link that should exist. Yours might differ. Decide before you join, not after.