Editorial Standards

What we write touches readers' money, so the rules below exist for one purpose: sources you can check, commercial ties out in the open, and mistakes fixed quickly.

1. Source Tiering

• Tier 1 (preferred): Binance Academy, exchange fee schedules published by the exchanges themselves, project whitepapers, and regulator filings (US SEC, UK FCA, Hong Kong SFC, and equivalents).
• Tier 2: CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, DeFiLlama, Glassnode, Etherscan, RootData, Messari.
• Tier 3: Peer-reviewed academic research, reports from established VCs, public on-chain data.
• Tier 4 (lowest): Editorial-team assessments and illustrative examples. Always labeled "editorial assessment" or "illustrative" so the reader knows it is our judgment (not a real-account record or an external source).

Any concrete number we publish — a "0.10% taker fee," a "$50B 24h volume" — must link back to a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source. No exceptions.

2. Review Process

1. Writer drafts the piece and cites every data point.
2. Compliance pass: banned phrases get stripped (no "guaranteed returns," no "risk-free," no "100% safe").
3. Fact-check against the Tier 1 / Tier 2 sources cited.
4. Editorial-independence review: would this rating change if the affiliate relationship vanished tomorrow? If yes, the rating gets reworked.
5. Final pass and a visible publish date before it goes live.

3. Conflict of Interest

• We take part in Binance's referral programme. Full mechanics in ouraffiliate disclosure.
• Personal holdings of any team member must be disclosed in-article when relevant.
• Ratings sit outside the affiliate relationship. A partner that rates poorly still rates poorly — we do not adjust scores to keep anyone happy.
• We do not accept paid placements, sponsored "reviews," or any flavor of pay-to-praise content. Ever.

4. Checking Numbers and Quotes

Before a piece goes up, its numbers, quotes and links get one more pass:

• Fees, limits and feature paths are checked against Binance's own pages.
• Every quote has to be traceable to its source; if we can't find it, it becomes a paraphrase or comes out.
• Every outbound link is opened to confirm it still works and points to the page the text says it does.
• When a reader writes in about an error, we check it and correct the article itself.

5. Scores and Rankings

We don't publish accuracy scores, star ratings or winner percentages for AI tools unless the full inputs, raw outputs, grading rules and failed runs can be published alongside them. Tool pages are selection guides built on official documentation; comparisons are written up as methods you can run yourself.

6. Banned Marketing Claims (compliance must catch these)

• "Guaranteed profit," "risk-free," "zero risk," any variant of "100% safe."
• Fake urgency: "limited time," "only a few spots left," "ends tonight."
• "Official Binance partner" — the accurate phrasing is "takes part in Binance's referral programme."
• "100% rebate" or "up to 90% commission back" framed as a user benefit.
• Unverifiable claims like "AI predicts price moves with 95% accuracy."
• Fabricated social proof: invented "X million users," fake review counts, fake "Featured in" press logos.

7. Corrections Policy

Spotted a factual error? Email [email protected]. We review within seven working days. Confirmed errors get:

• A visible correction notice on the original article.
• A clear before/after record of what changed.
• Credit to the reader who flagged it, if they want to be named.