This page describes how InfoCrypto's content is made. It is not a statement of intent: these are the rules that decide what gets published, what does not and what happens when something goes wrong. They are written so that you can check them by reading the site and hold us to them when we fall short.
Who is behind the project and how it is funded is set out in about us.
What counts as a source
A figure is published only if it comes from a primary source, meaning the site that originates the information rather than the one that repeats it. In practice:
- Regulators and official bodies. The national competent authorities supervising crypto-asset service providers across the EU, ESMA and the EUR-Lex texts of the legislation itself, the SEC and the CFTC in the United States, national tax authorities on tax matters, and the official registers of authorised providers when we need to check whether a firm is licensed.
- Official protocol documentation. Specifications, EIPs, the project's own technical documentation and published code. If we assert what a function in a standard does, the reference is the standard.
- Public reports with a stated methodology. The annual Chainalysis reports on on-chain crime, the FBI's IC3 reports and equivalent publications that explain how they arrive at their numbers.
- The manufacturer's or provider's own pages for prices, fees and product specifications: the tariff is published by whoever charges it.
What we do not use as the source of a figure: comparison aggregators, exchange blogs, project press releases, review sites that live on affiliate income, and the many pages that copy numbers from one another without citing an origin. The reasoning is twofold. Traceability: a number circulating without a source cannot be checked or updated, and it often drags on for years out of date. And incentive: an exchange's own blog and a comparison site paid per sign-up have a direct interest in how that figure looks, and citing them does not neutralise it.
Where a secondary source is genuinely useful for establishing a specific fact — a piece of investigative journalism, say — we link to it as exactly that and name who published it.
Traceability of data
Every market figure carries a date and a link. We do not publish a percentage, a volume or a fee without saying where it comes from and what moment it refers to: the full references sit at the end of each guide, and the data is linked inline in the paragraph itself.
The market data currently published on the site was collected on 28 August 2026. That is the date shown as "updated" on the affected pages.
Pages with fast-ageing data — fees, market caps, the status of a licence, legislative timelines — additionally carry a visible notice stating the collection date and recommending you check the linked sources. This is not a formality: a fee table can be obsolete within weeks.
What we do when a figure cannot be verified
We say so. This is the rule that has cost us the most content and the one that best describes how we work: if we could not confirm a figure in a primary source, we do not publish it, and we explain why it is missing. An acknowledged gap is useful information; an invented or blindly copied number is a harm the reader has no way of detecting.
These gaps exist on the site right now, and they are deliberate:
- We do not publish Bitstamp's fees. It appears in our table of platforms authorised under MiCA, with its regulator and licence date, but without a tariff: the figures in circulation come from secondary sources and we could not confirm them on the official site. Rather than give a plausible percentage, we leave the cell empty and flag it.
- We give no tax figures for Mexico, Argentina or Colombia. The regulation guide describes each country's framework but publishes no 2026 tax rates, because we did not verify them in a primary source. A wrong percentage on a tax matter can lead someone to file incorrectly.
- We do not publish a 2026 NFT market volume. We give the verified data up to the third quarter of 2025 and state explicitly that there is no reliable figure for 2026: anything circulating without a primary source should be treated as unverified.
- We do not state a settled position on Binance's status in the EU. The company withdrew its MiCA application and announced its exit from the bloc in mid-2026, but reporting through July 2026 indicated it remained accessible in practice to some EU users. We describe what is documented, date it, and tell the reader to check the official register rather than trust a snapshot.
If you find a figure missing from a guide, it is most likely one of these cases, and the text will say so.
Commercial independence
- No affiliate links. No link on the site pays us per click, sign-up or deposit. Not exchanges, not wallet manufacturers, not brokers, not apps.
- No sponsorships and no paid content. We publish no funded articles, no bought mentions and no press releases presented as our own analysis.
- AdSense is the only source of revenue. Contextual advertising served automatically by Google.
- Advertising and editorial are separate. Advertisers do not choose topics, do not review drafts and have no channel through which to request changes. A platform coming off badly in a guide has no effect on which ads are served, because we do not select them.
We also decline link exchanges and requests for coverage. They always get a no.
Corrections policy
How to report an error. Write to us from the contact page with the URL, the specific figure or paragraph and, if you have it, the source that corrects it. You do not need to be an expert: pointing at where you think it fails is enough.
Deadline. We review error reports within seven calendar days. If the error affects reader safety or a legal obligation — a procedure that exposes keys, a wrong filing deadline — it is dealt with immediately.
What we do, by severity:
| Type of error | Action |
|---|---|
| Typo, broken link, formatting | Silent correction, no note |
| Outdated figure that is no longer correct | Updated, with a new "updated" date |
| Error that changes the meaning of a claim | Correction plus a visible note at the foot, with the date and what it previously said |
| Statement that should never have been published | The passage is withdrawn, the reason is explained and the note stays |
The rule is simple: if the error could have led someone to understand the opposite of what is true, the correction is made visible. Quietly deleting a substantive error deceives twice.
Review schedule
Every page carries an "updated" date. It means the data and links on that page were checked that day, not that the text was rewritten. If nothing changed because everything was still correct, the date is updated anyway: what it certifies is the check.
- Guides with market data (fees, market caps, scam statistics, device prices): reviewed quarterly, and whenever a relevant change is spotted.
- Regulation and tax guides: reviewed quarterly, and immediately on any regulatory milestone — a rule taking effect, a change in a platform's registration status, a new position published by a tax authority.
- Conceptual guides (how mining works, what a smart contract is, proof of work versus proof of stake): reviewed annually, because the mechanism does not change even when the market does.
- Links to sources: checked at every review. If a source disappears, it is replaced with another primary one or the figure is marked as unverifiable.
Use of artificial intelligence tools
We say this plainly, because hiding it would be worse than explaining it: artificial intelligence assistance is used in the research and drafting of this site. It is used to locate documentation, summarise long texts, structure drafts and review the writing.
What we do not do is publish what comes out of it:
- No figure is published because a tool produced it. Every number, date, name of a regulation or product specification is checked against the primary source before publication, and the text links to that source, not to the tool.
- What cannot be verified is dropped. If a figure does not appear in the original source, it is not published: it becomes one of the declared gaps described in the section above.
- A person reviews and signs off every guide before it goes live. Editorial responsibility for everything published rests with
[TO COMPLETE: name of the editor responsible]. If there is an error, it is our error, not a tool's.
Assistance without verification produces text that is plausible and wrong. The checking process is identical whether or not a draft was written with help.
What we do not publish
- Price predictions. No targets, no ranges, no where-it-is-headed for anything.
- Trading signals, model portfolios, entry or exit points.
- Lists along the lines of the 10 cryptocurrencies about to explode, or any other disguised buy recommendation.
- Paid platform reviews, in any format.
- Content about projects that ask for it. A project requesting coverage is sufficient reason not to give it.
- Content that teaches people to evade tax obligations or anti-money-laundering controls.
- Data we have not been able to verify, even when it happens to be true: if we cannot check it, we cannot publish it.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest is any circumstance that could influence what we write: holding a significant position in an asset we cover, a professional or personal relationship with a project or a platform, or having received anything of value from an interested party.
As of today, InfoCrypto has no commercial agreements, holdings or relationships with any platform, issuer or manufacturer mentioned on the site, and receives nothing of value from any of them.
Should one ever arise, it would be declared on the affected page itself, visible in the text and not buried in a legal notice, with an explanation of what it consists of. And if it made independent writing impossible, the alternative is not to publish on that subject.
If you spot something that does not match what is described here, write to us from the contact page. An editorial policy nobody can hold you to is worth nothing.