How we verify what we publish — and how to tell us when we’ve got something wrong.
We work from primary sources: official documentation, the actual text of a whitepaper or terms, on-chain data, and named, linkable references rather than rumour. We separate what is fact (verifiable) from what is opinion (our honest read of the facts), and we label the difference.
Because crypto changes quickly, we date material that can go stale and revisit it. If we can’t stand a claim up, we don’t print it as fact.
Our Scam Watch investigations are held to a deliberately high, England & Wales-aware evidence bar. We quote sources verbatim and with attribution, link to what we’re describing, follow the money on-chain rather than relying on a project’s own numbers, and frame opinion openly as opinion built on stated facts.
Every investigation carries a dated “how we checked” note and a right of reply. We never use a scam project’s logo or promotional art, and we don’t publish an allegation we can’t evidence.
If we get something wrong, we fix it promptly, and for anything material we note that a correction was made rather than quietly changing the record. Accuracy matters more to us than looking infallible.
Spotted an error — a wrong figure, an out-of-date fact, a broken explanation? Please tell us and we’ll review it quickly and thank you for it.
If you represent a project, product or company we’ve written about and you believe something is inaccurate, email us with verifiable evidence and we will review and correct it promptly. This applies to everything on the site, including Scam Watch — the standard there is evidence, not volume, and accurate criticism is welcome to be tested.