Editorial Policy
This Editorial Policy defines how BitFinova research, verify, write, review, update, and fact check all content published on our crypto education and review website. Our mission is to provide accurate, independent, and practical information about cryptocurrencies, blockchain networks, DeFi protocols, NFTs, exchanges, wallets, infrastructure tools, and emerging Web3 technologies. Given the fast moving and high risk nature of crypto markets, we apply stricter than average standards for verification, transparency, and updates.
Editorial Independence:
Independence First: Editorial decisions are made independently of advertisers, sponsors, token issuers, exchanges, or affiliates.
No Pay-to-Play: We do not accept payment to publish favorable reviews, ratings, or rankings.
Separation of Teams: Editorial staff operate separately from advertising, partnerships, and business development teams.
Right to Criticize: We reserve the right to publish critical analysis, risk disclosures, or negative findings regardless of commercial relationships.
Content Research Standards:
Primary Research
We prioritize primary and verifiable sources, including:
Official project documentation (whitepapers, technical docs, GitHub repositories)
Blockchain explorers (e.g., Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, Cosmos-based explorers)
Smart contract source code (when publicly available)
On-chain data dashboards and analytics tools
Regulatory filings, licenses, and public enforcement actions
Secondary Research
Secondary sources are used for context and comparison and may include:
Reputable crypto research firms
Academic or peer-reviewed blockchain research
Established industry publications
Public statements from developers, foundations, or regulators
Unverified social media posts, anonymous claims, or promotional materials are never treated as standalone sources.
Writing and Review Process:
Topic Selection: Topics are chosen based on user relevance, ecosystem importance, emerging risks, or educational value.
Research Dossier: Writers compile a research file with sources, screenshots, transaction hashes, and references.
Initial Draft: Content is written in clear, neutral language with defined assumptions and limitations.
Editorial Review: An editor reviews for clarity, completeness, bias, and compliance with this policy.
Technical Review : Crypto specific content may undergo review by a blockchain literate editor to validate technical claims.
Final Approval: Content is approved only after sourcing and risk disclosures are complete.
Fact Checking and Verification:
Crypto Platforms & Projects
Verify team claims against public records, GitHub activity, and historical announcements
Confirm token supply, issuance, and emissions using on-chain data
Cross-check roadmap claims with past delivery history
Smart Contracts & Audits
Review published audit reports from recognized security firms
Verify the scope and date of audits (audits are not guarantees)
Check whether audited code matches deployed contract addresses
Note unresolved issues, severity levels, and post-audit changes
Exchanges & Wallets
Confirm custody model (custodial vs non-custodial)
Review proof-of-reserves disclosures when available
Check security history, breaches, and incident responses
Verify supported chains, assets, and withdrawal policies
On Chain Data Analysis:
When relevant, we analyze on-chain data to validate claims, including:
Transaction volume and user activity trends
Token holder distribution and concentration
Treasury wallets and fund movements
Liquidity depth and lock status
Emissions schedules and vesting contracts
We clearly state the tools used and the timeframe of analysis, acknowledging that on-chain data reflects historical states, not future guarantees.
Scam & Risk Assessment Framework:
We actively evaluate and disclose red flags, including but not limited to:
Anonymous or unverifiable teams
Unrealistic APY or guaranteed returns
Centralized admin keys without safeguards
Poorly documented or unaudited smart contracts
Sudden tokenomics changes
High token concentration among insiders
Aggressive referral or pyramid style incentives
Mismatch between marketing claims and on-chain reality
Risk disclosures are integrated into reviews, not hidden in fine print.
Accuracy Standards:
All factual claims must be supported by at least one reliable source
Estimates, projections, or opinions are clearly labeled
Numerical data includes timestamps or block heights where applicable
Errors are corrected promptly with visible update notes
We aim for accuracy over speed, especially during breaking news or market events.
Updates & Maintenance:
Living Content: Reviews and guides are treated as living documents
Scheduled Reviews: High-traffic or high-risk pages are reviewed at least quarterly
Event Driven Updates: Content is updated after major protocol upgrades, hacks, regulatory changes, or insolvency events
Timestamping: Pages display last-updated dates to reflect freshness
Outdated or unverifiable content may be archived or removed.
Our Commitment:
Our editorial standards are designed to reduce misinformation, highlight risks, and empower readers to make informed decisions based on transparent, verifiable information. For more information :
