Fact-Checking Standards

01

Why fact-checking matters here

Cryptocurrency journalism operates in an environment that is structurally hostile to good fact-checking. Markets move in minutes. Projects publish press releases that sound authoritative. Founders make claims that cannot be immediately verified. Social media amplifies rumours at the speed of a trade. Token prices can be materially affected by inaccurate reporting within seconds of publication.

These pressures are real. They are also not valid excuses for publishing unverified claims. CryptoFox's standard is that every factual claim must be traceable to a primary, verifiable source before it is published. Speed is a legitimate editorial value — but not when it means publishing information that may be wrong.

Core principle: If we cannot say where a fact came from, we cannot publish it as a fact. We can publish that a claim has been made — attributing it clearly to the person or source making it — but we cannot present an unverifiable claim as established fact.

These standards apply to all original editorial content: news articles, analysis pieces, and market reports. Opinion articles are exempt from fact-checking in their analytical conclusions — authors may argue positions we disagree with — but all factual claims within opinion articles are subject to the same verification standard.

02

Source hierarchy

Not all sources carry equal weight. We apply a four-tier hierarchy when evaluating the reliability of a source. Claims supported only by lower-tier sources require either corroboration from a higher-tier source or a clear attribution that signals to the reader the claim's evidential status.

T1

Primary, verifiable, on-record

The gold standard. Claims from these sources can be published as established facts with attribution but without requiring additional corroboration.

On-chain data from a block explorer · Official regulatory filings · Court documents · Verified official announcements from named organisations · Peer-reviewed research · Audio or video recording of a statement

T2

Named, credentialed, on-record source

Statements from named individuals speaking on the record in their professional capacity. Strong but requires context about who the source is and what interests they may have.

A named company spokesperson quoted in an interview · A named analyst speaking in their professional capacity · A named politician quoted from an official statement

T3

Anonymous source with verified knowledge

Unnamed sources who have been evaluated by the reporter and editor as credible and knowledgeable. Usable with explicit attribution ("according to a person familiar with the matter") and ideally corroborated. See our Unnamed Sources policy for full rules.

A former employee with direct knowledge · A person briefed on confidential deliberations

T4

Unverified claims

Social media posts, unverified forum posts, second-hand rumours, and claims from sources who have not been evaluated for credibility. These may be reported as claims — never as facts — with explicit attribution to the specific post or account and a note that the claim has not been independently verified.

Unverified tweets · Anonymous forum posts · Unconfirmed industry rumours

A story built entirely on T4 sources should not be published until at least one T1, T2, or T3 source is obtained. If a rumour is newsworthy enough to report, it is newsworthy enough to make calls attempting to verify it.

03

Pre-publication checklist

Before submitting a story for editorial review, every reporter must be able to answer yes to each of the following questions. Editors apply the same checklist during review.

Every factual claim in this article is traceable to a named source, a primary document, or on-chain data.
I have contacted the primary subject of any negative claim to give them the opportunity to respond before publication.
No claims in this article rely solely on anonymous social media accounts or unverified forum posts presented as fact.
Numerical figures (prices, market caps, volumes, wallet balances, percentages) have been verified against a primary data source in the last 30 minutes.
All direct quotes are verbatim from the recording or transcript, not paraphrased.
I have disclosed any personal financial interest in the assets or companies discussed in this article to my editor.
Technical claims about blockchain protocols, smart contracts, or cryptographic mechanisms have been reviewed by a technically qualified colleague or source.
Any claim sourced from an anonymous source has been corroborated by at least one additional independent source, or is clearly labeled as a single-source claim.
Where I was unable to independently verify a claim, the article clearly signals this to the reader.

04

Claims we cannot verify

Not every claim can be independently verified before a story is published. This is normal in journalism. What matters is how unverified claims are handled in the article itself.

What we can publish

A claim that we cannot independently verify may be published if it is clearly attributed to the person or source making it, and if the reader is given enough context to evaluate its credibility. Example: "The company claimed in its announcement that the protocol processed 10 million transactions. CryptoFox was unable to independently verify this figure."

What we cannot publish

We cannot publish an unverified claim as an established fact — even in passing, even when the claim is widely repeated elsewhere. Repeating a false claim from another outlet does not make it true, and it does not protect us from the consequences of having published it.

The standard phrase for flagging unverified claims to readers is: "[Organisation/person] said… CryptoFox could not independently verify [the specific claim]." This language should appear in the article body, not buried in a disclaimer note at the bottom.

Publishing a claim as fact because it "seems likely", because a competitor has already published it, or because a source we trust said it off the record is not a defence — it is a failure of editorial standards. These are the specific scenarios where most journalistic errors originate.

05

Numbers, data & statistics

Numerical errors are among the most common and most damaging in financial journalism. A transposed digit in a market cap figure, a percentage vs. absolute value confusion, or a stale price pulled from a cached page can materially mislead readers.

All prices and market data cited in an article must be verified against a live primary source (Binance, CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, a relevant DEX) within 30 minutes of the article going to editorial review.
Percentages must be checked for direction and basis. A 50% increase and a 50% decrease are not equivalent. A 200% return means tripling, not doubling. These errors are extremely common and extremely consequential.
Market capitalisation figures must be calculated or verified, not assumed. Market cap = circulating supply × price, not total supply × price. The distinction matters significantly for smaller tokens.
On-chain transaction data must cite the specific block explorer and query used. Different explorers may report slightly different figures due to how they handle pending transactions.
Third-party research reports and analyst estimates must be attributed clearly and treated as opinion or estimate, not established fact, unless they derive from verifiable primary methodology.
Historical data must specify the time period clearly. "Bitcoin's average daily volume" is meaningless without a time range. "As of [specific date]" is required for any snapshot figure.

06

On-chain & technical claims

Blockchain data is uniquely verifiable — almost every on-chain claim can be independently confirmed by any reader with a block explorer. This is an advantage. It is also an obligation: if a claim can be verified on-chain, it should be verified on-chain before publication, not taken on trust from a source.

Wallet balances, transaction hashes, contract addresses, and token supply figures must be verified on a block explorer and the specific explorer cited in the article.
Smart contract audits must be sourced from the auditor's own published report, not from the project's claims about having been audited. Audit scope, date, and outcome are all relevant to the claim.
Protocol mechanics — consensus mechanisms, tokenomics, governance structures — must be verified against the protocol's published technical documentation or whitepaper, not only from founder statements.
Claims about TVL (total value locked) must cite the data source (DeFiLlama, official protocol dashboard, etc.) as these figures vary significantly by methodology.
Technical claims that a reporter cannot independently verify must be reviewed by our Technology Reporter or a named external technical expert before publication.

Default to primary sources: If a project says it has $500 million in TVL, verify it on DeFiLlama or the protocol's own dashboard before publishing the figure. If the numbers don't match, that discrepancy is part of the story.

07

Breaking news standards

Breaking news is the greatest test of fact-checking discipline. The pressure to publish first is real. So is the damage caused by publishing incorrectly.

CryptoFox uses a two-tier breaking news system:

Developing Story label: An article may be published with a "Developing Story" label when: the core event (a hack, an arrest, a regulatory action) has been confirmed by at least one T1 or T2 source; and the article clearly states what is confirmed versus what is still being investigated. Developing story articles are updated in real time, with updates timestamped.
Confirmed Story: A story transitions from "Developing" to confirmed only when: two independent T1 or T2 sources have confirmed the key facts; or one T1 source (a primary document, on-chain data, or official announcement) is available.

We do not publish based on a single unverified tweet, even from an official-seeming account. Verified X accounts have been hacked and used to publish false information with significant market consequences.

08

Post-publication review

Fact-checking does not end at publication. Our Head of Fact-Checking reviews a random sample of published articles each week against their source material. Any discrepancy triggers a formal review and, where required, a correction.

Stories about significant market events — major protocol hacks, token collapses, enforcement actions — undergo a mandatory post-publication review within 72 hours to verify that all facts remain accurate as the situation develops and new information emerges.

Readers who identify factual errors are an important part of our post-publication fact-checking. We treat every correction request as a serious review. The process for submitting one is described in our Corrections Policy.

Fact-CheckingStandards