CoinLineup uses an editorial review process designed to improve reliability, attribution, and reader trust. The standard varies by format, but the expectation remains the same: important claims should be checkable.
Purpose of this page
This page explains how CoinLineup approaches verification in practice. Readers should be able to understand what checks are expected before publication, what visible signals should appear on the page, and how we handle changes when new information emerges.
Pre-publication checks
- Confirm names, dates, prices, percentages, and quotations against the best available source.
- Prefer primary materials such as protocol documentation, company announcements, filings, or direct statements.
- Check links, asset tickers, token names, and network references before publication.
- Remove unsupported claims, vague superlatives, and promotional language that cannot be substantiated.
When one source is not enough
If a claim could materially affect price, legal exposure, project reputation, or reader decision-making, a single thin or promotional source is usually not enough on its own. In those cases, CoinLineup should look for corroborating documents, data, or statements before presenting the claim as established fact.
Handling uncertain or developing information
Some crypto stories develop quickly and not all facts are available at once. In those cases, we should distinguish between what is confirmed, what is claimed by interested parties, and what remains uncertain. Missing certainty should not be hidden behind confident language.
What readers should see
- A visible byline or accountable editorial label
- A visible publication date
- An updated date when material changes are made after publication
- Clear labels for sponsored or promotional content when applicable
Attribution and sourcing
We aim to attribute material facts to the most reliable available source and link outward where doing so helps readers verify the claim. Aggregation without added reporting, context, or verification does not meet our preferred standard.
Fact-checking categories
- Identity checks: names of companies, protocols, tokens, exchanges, wallets, regulators, executives, and public figures.
- Chronology checks: dates of announcements, launches, listings, unlocks, rulings, hacks, and article updates.
- Numeric checks: prices, percentage moves, treasury sizes, funding amounts, staking yields, or other market-sensitive figures.
- Claim checks: whether a project, exchange, or third party actually said or did the thing the article attributes to them.
Updates after publication
Crypto markets move quickly. We may update articles to reflect confirmed new information, corrected data points, or material developments. When changes are substantive, we aim to reflect that in the visible update information.
Opinion, analysis, and reviews
Analysis and reviews may include judgment, interpretation, and editorial perspective, but they should still be grounded in checkable facts, fair context, and clear disclosure of any material commercial relationship.
AI-assisted workflows
We may use internal AI tools to assist with research organization, formatting, or drafting support. Final publication remains a human responsibility, and AI-generated text should not replace verification.
Records and accountability
When an article is challenged, the reporting and review process should be explainable enough for the editorial team to revisit the underlying source trail. That expectation supports both corrections handling and general reader trust.
Escalation path
If you want to challenge a factual claim, request a correction, or flag a sourcing concern, contact [email protected] and include the article URL plus supporting evidence.