Editorial standards
Editorial Policy
We publish for a B2C crypto audience, but we do not flatten the subject for convenience. We write clearly, we show our reasoning, and we distinguish between what a project says, what its infrastructure shows and what market behavior confirms.
How we choose topics
We prioritize developments that affect retail understanding and participation: market structure, listings and delistings, wallet changes, staking mechanics, tokenomics, chain health, bridge risks, exchange access, major regulatory shifts and product launches that change how people store, move or value crypto assets.
We assign higher news value to items that combine public claims with visible evidence. A roadmap becomes important when it is paired with live docs, a working explorer, code movement, wallet distribution, exchange exposure or a measurable community response. We assign lower value to vague hype, recycled press copy and announcement threads that do not create new information.
How we handle different article types
News reports a development with immediate relevance. Analysis explains what the development changes in practice. Opinion is clearly labeled and argues from disclosed evidence. Explainers translate technical or market complexity into plain language. Reviews focus on product usability, documentation, onboarding and consumer fit. Profiles map a project, company or protocol through its public record. Investigative features are reserved for cases where timelines, public statements, infrastructure traces and market behavior need to be reconstructed in depth.
Proof, evidence and sourcing
We work from primary materials first: project sites, whitepapers, documentation, block explorers, open-source repositories, exchange notices, regulatory filings, company pages and official social channels. We compare those with secondary coverage only after the primary record is mapped. Screenshots are used as support, not as substitutes for source inspection. When we cite archived or legacy pages, we preserve the original context, date and URL whenever possible.
We also distinguish between three kinds of proof: declared proof, visible proof and market proof. Declared proof is what a team says. Visible proof is what can be inspected through docs, explorers, repos or product pages. Market proof is what shows up through liquidity, access, user behavior, counterparties and time. Good crypto reporting needs all three categories in view.
Archive work, updates and corrections
We update published pieces when material facts change, including supply figures, exchange status, bridge availability, app access, team disclosures, token utility, validator requirements and contact details. When the update is substantive, we add a note inside the article explaining what changed and why. Minor copy edits that do not affect meaning are corrected silently. Factual corrections are never buried.
When working with archived pages, quoted statements and deleted posts, we preserve the distinction between a live claim and a historical claim. We do not collapse timelines. The archive is part of the evidence.
Competence, independence and transparency
We stay competent by following the same beats over time: wallets, chain infrastructure, token distribution, exchange access, DeFi mechanics, NFT utility and retail onboarding. We disclose our standards here because transparency is part of credibility. Readers should be able to see how a piece was built, what kind of source it relies on and where to send a challenge if a fact needs to be checked again.