Editorial Policy & Standards

Crypto Compass News reports on a fast-moving industry where price action and reputational claims often outpace verifiable facts. This page documents the standards we hold ourselves to — sourcing, conflict-of-interest disclosure, corrections handling, and responsible disclosure for security and on-chain investigations.

Sourcing and verification

For news coverage, we verify on-chain claims directly through block explorers (Etherscan, Solscan, Arkham, Dune) before publication. For interview-based content, we name on-record sources and explicitly mark when material claims come from anonymous sources or background-only conversations. We do not publish allegations of fraud, hacking, or misconduct without independent verification or — where the public interest is significant — a balanced response from the named party.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure

Every author may hold positions in crypto assets. We require disclosure when material. The threshold is asymmetric and conservative: disclosure is required for any position that could reasonably influence the article's content, regardless of size. Specific position disclosures appear at the article level. Editors who have direct conflicts (past employment at a rated company, ongoing advisory roles, equity positions) are recused from those specific ratings or analyses.

Affiliate links and revenue

Some pages contain affiliate links to exchanges, wallets, and DeFi protocols. Affiliate links are disclosed at the point of click and never influence editorial decisions. We follow these specific rules: (1) we never link affiliately to a service that scores below 7.0 on our methodology, (2) we list non-affiliate alternatives where applicable, and (3) we maintain a separation between revenue operations and editorial decision-making — editors do not know affiliate revenue per article.

Corrections policy

When we get something wrong, we correct it. Significant corrections (factual errors, misstated numbers, mis-attribution) are noted at the bottom of the corrected article with the date of update. Minor copy edits (typos, grammar) are made silently. If a rating changes materially after publication, we re-publish with the updated score and an "Updated" tag, and we link from the old article to the new one. We do not silently rewrite history.

Responsible disclosure for security findings

When our security coverage uncovers vulnerabilities in active protocols, we follow responsible disclosure. We give the affected protocol team a reasonable window (typically 30–90 days depending on severity) to address the issue before publication. For active exploits in progress, we coordinate with the protocol team, exchanges, and where appropriate, law enforcement. Public disclosure happens only after either remediation or sufficient time has passed that withholding information no longer prevents exploitation.

On-chain investigations

For investigations into specific addresses, contracts, or transactions, we publish only what is independently verifiable on-chain. We do not attribute wallets to individuals without strong evidence (KYC leaks, public exchange withdrawals, voluntary statements by the address holder). We are explicit about the difference between "this wallet did X" (provable on-chain) and "this person is behind this wallet" (often not provable).

AI tooling disclosure

We use AI tools internally for research, draft outlines, and grammar — never to generate published prose without significant human editing and verification. Every word published under an author byline has been written or substantively edited by that author. We do not publish AI-generated content as if it were human-written. When AI tools assist with research (summarisation, on-chain data parsing), the author still verifies findings independently.

Reader feedback

If you spot an error, see a missing source, or believe our coverage is unfair, write to the editorial team via the contact page. We read every message and respond to substantive concerns within 48 hours on business days. Editors do not respond to commercial pressure but do respond to factual challenges with the same rigour we apply to original reporting.