Skip to content

Editorial Policy

How we research, write, check and update what we publish.

Last updated October 21, 2026

  1. Proof of reserves 30%

    Can the exchange show — not just claim — that it holds what it owes customers, ideally with independent attestation?

  2. Custody 25%

    Is the majority of customer funds held offline in cold storage, with the split disclosed publicly?

  3. Regulation 20%

    Is it licensed by a recognized regulator in the markets it serves, or only registered as a money-services business?

  4. Insurance 15%

    Is there a disclosed insurance fund or third-party coverage against theft and hacks?

  5. Incident history 10%

    Has it avoided major security incidents — or handled one transparently and made customers whole?

Publishing standards

Eight rules that decide what reaches a page. They are written down because every one of them was, at some point, easier to break than to keep.

An unsourced figure is labelled, not estimated
Where we could not verify a number against a primary source, the page says so in place of the number. Never a blank cell, never a plausible guess, never a third-party estimate presented as the venue's own figure.
Proof of reserves is not an audit
We report who signed a reserve report as prominently as whether one exists. A self-published snapshot is a claim you can inspect; it is not one an accountant has checked, and it says nothing about liabilities.
A safety fund is not deposit insurance
A named insurance or user-protection fund is a company policy, not a state guarantee. We never describe one as covering every loss, and we never infer a coverage limit that has not been disclosed.
Availability is checked, not assumed
We do not state that a venue serves a country unless its own terms do. We never explain how to work around a geographic restriction, and we do not treat a separately licensed local entity as the same service as the global platform.
No score without a published derivation
The A–F grade comes from five weighted, named, individually sourced factors, and the weighting is on the page. We publish no second number beside it, because a rating with no stated derivation is indistinguishable from one that was made up.
No byline for a person who does not exist
Desk-produced content is attributed to the desk, as an organisation. We do not invent an author, a photograph or a biography to make research look like reporting.
Fees and licences rot fastest
Time-sensitive claims ship with the date they were checked and a link to the live source. A last-reviewed date on a page nobody re-checked is worse than no date at all: it makes the wrongness look verified.
A commercial link says what it does
Partner links are labelled by the action — check eligibility, view the fee schedule — never by a claim about the destination. Each carries rel="sponsored nofollow", a disclosure beside it, and the note that access depends on jurisdiction. Where there is no partner, the button renders nothing rather than a dead link.

Before we publish

Seven checks, run on every page in every language before it goes live.

  1. Every fee, licence and availability claim re-checked against the live primary source, on the date the page shows.
  2. Nothing on the page that the source record does not carry — no estimated figure, no rounded-up count, no inferred coverage.
  3. No commercial link before the content that makes the decision, and no placeholder link left in the body.
  4. The review date populated and true, and the desk that owns re-checking it named.
  5. Structured data validated against what the page actually renders, with no rating the page does not show.
  6. Risk stated where the reader meets the product, not collected into a footer disclaimer.
  7. Every internal link resolved — in all eight languages, not only in English.