What gets written about

One kind of topic only: the reader arrives with a specific problem and leaves with a specific action. "What is a blockchain" does not get written here, because it does not help anyone trying to open an account. "The country field is wrong, can it be changed" does.

The second filter is whether we can add anything. If a topic can only be a reorganisation of what is already published elsewhere, we would rather leave it alone.

How numbers are handled

This is where a site like this does the most damage when it gets things wrong, so the rules are rigid.

  • Protocol-level facts can be stated directly. Roughly how often a chain produces a block, for instance, does not change because a platform updated its promotions page.
  • Platform fees, limits and confirmation counts are always written as ranges, with the month they were checked, and a pointer to the platform's page as the thing that settles it. A precise figure reads as authoritative right up until it turns into misinformation.
  • No invented statistics or case studies. User counts, success rates and average durations do not appear unless there is a real source.
  • No false precision in timestamps. You will not read "tested at 14:23 on the 3rd" here. Minute-level precision in this subject is almost always fabricated, and inventing first-hand experience is worse than not having any.

What "we" can and cannot say in an article

Articles here may use the first person to give advice — "have the address proof ready before you submit", "if it were us, we would check the maker rate on the fee page first". What they do not include is experience a reader cannot verify: no "we walked through it", no "it arrived in a few minutes when we tried", no unsourced stories about readers or friends, and no claiming a screenshot or an on-chain record we cannot produce.

Put another way: advice can be written; experience and evidence cannot be invented. Every claim should either point to a public page or be something you can recompute from the formula shown.

How much of this involves AI

Directly: AI tools are used here for gathering source material, first drafts and formatting. That is unremarkable in 2026, and hiding it would be the suspicious choice.

What matters is which steps are not delegated:

  • Anything factual about platform rules, fees or regional availability goes back to the official page or another authoritative source. A model's recollection is never treated as a source.
  • Conclusions and trade-offs are decided by a person. AI does not decide what this site does or does not endorse.
  • No AI-generated user stories, interviews or data. Fabricated experience is the specific thing we are trying not to produce.
  • A person reads the finished piece end to end, checking that nothing overreaches and that no risk has been quietly softened.

When something turns out to be wrong

The process does not vary:

  • Go back to the official page or the original source and establish whether the problem is real.
  • If it is, fix the text and update the date shown on the page.
  • Any change touching a fact, a number or a conclusion gets written up on the corrections page, saying what was wrong and what it now says.
  • If it is not, reply explaining why.

What we do not do is edit quietly and behave as though nothing happened. Readers are entitled to know what a site has changed.

Referral income and editorial independence

This site earns referral fees; the mechanics are on the disclosure page. Editorially, the boundary is: no exchange rankings, no hiding a platform's problems, no urgency tactics, and no arrangement that comes with a required conclusion.

Those are not a statement of good intentions. They are testable. If you see this site break one of them, we want to hear about it.