Unnamed
& Anonymous
Sources

Anonymous sources are necessary in journalism. Some of the most important reporting in history depended on people who could not put their names on what they knew. The cryptocurrency industry — with its culture of pseudonymity, its employment relationships that create strong disincentives to public dissent, and its regulatory grey areas — regularly produces situations where the most credible and most important information comes from sources who cannot be named.

At the same time, the anonymous source is a tool that has been widely abused in financial journalism. It has been used to plant rumours. It has been used by insiders to move markets. It has been used to attack competitors under the cover of press protection. It has allowed accusations to be made without accountability.

This policy exists to enable CryptoFox to use anonymous sources when they are genuinely necessary — and to prevent their abuse. It defines clearly when anonymity is justified, how sources are evaluated, and what readers are told when we rely on unnamed sources.

Anonymity may be granted to a source when all three of the following conditions are met:

• The information is important and cannot be obtained on the record. The story is genuinely in the public interest and the information would not be available without protecting the source's identity.
• There is a credible and serious reason why the source cannot speak publicly. Examples include: fear of retaliation by an employer; personal safety risk; legal or professional restrictions on disclosure; whistleblowing against a powerful organisation. "Preferring not to be quoted" or "wanting to stay on message" are not sufficient reasons.
• The reporter has verified the source's identity and assessed their credibility. Anonymous sources are not anonymous to the reporter. We know who they are. We have evaluated whether they have direct knowledge of what they are telling us.

A source may provide background information — helping a reporter understand a situation, suggesting avenues to pursue — without being granted anonymity for direct quotation. Background is not the same as sourcing a factual claim. Claims require verification regardless of how they were brought to our attention.

Before a reporter may use an anonymous source for a factual claim, they must be able to answer yes to each of the following evaluation questions. If the answer to any question is no, the editor must decide whether the story can proceed with the source's information attributed differently or held until additional sourcing is obtained.

The reporter must disclose the source's identity to the Managing Editor before any story relying on an anonymous source is published. Editors cannot grant approval for anonymous-source stories if the reporter has not disclosed who the source is.

Claims from a single anonymous source are not sufficient to publish a factual assertion as established fact. Every significant factual claim from an unnamed source must be corroborated — either by a second independent source, or by documentary or on-chain evidence.

• A second independent anonymous source counts as corroboration if the two sources are genuinely independent — they have not shared information with each other and their knowledge derives from different positions.
• A primary document — a regulatory filing, a leaked internal communication, a block explorer record — that supports the claim counts as corroboration even in the absence of a second source.
• A single anonymous source whose claim is not corroborated may be published in limited circumstances, but only with: editor approval; a clear attribution note in the article identifying this as a single-source claim; and only if the public interest in the information is judged to outweigh the risks of potentially inaccurate reporting.

When we use anonymous sources, the attribution language in the article must give the reader as much context as possible about who the source is and what their connection to the story is — without identifying them. Vague attribution is not acceptable. We aim to describe the source's relevant position and proximity to the information being cited.

The following phrases illustrate the standard we apply:

Anonymity grants a source protection from identification. It does not grant them immunity from editorial scrutiny, or the ability to use our platform to make claims without accountability. The following uses of anonymous sourcing are not permitted at CryptoFox under any circumstances:

• Personal attacks on named individuals using language that would be potentially defamatory if stated on the record. A source cannot say something anonymously that a named person would be legally exposed for saying.
• Advocacy or opinion presented as factual reporting. If a source wishes to express a view, not relay a fact, the distinction must be clear in the article or the quote cannot be used.
• Statements that amount to market manipulation — for example, falsely claiming a token is about to be listed on a major exchange, or spreading false information about a regulatory investigation.
• Information the source obtained by illegal means, unless the public interest in the information and the nature of the underlying wrongdoing clearly outweighs the illegality of the obtaining method — a judgement made by the Editor-in-Chief, not the individual reporter.
• Spin or narrative management on behalf of a company or individual who could easily speak on the record but is using anonymity to advance their interests while avoiding accountability.

When we promise a source confidentiality, that promise is absolute. We do not reveal the identity of a confidential source to anyone outside the journalist and the Managing Editor — not to other editorial staff, not to the company being reported on, not to other sources, and not to our ownership.

Operational security

Sources who are concerned about operational security when communicating sensitive information are encouraged to contact us using the following methods, in descending order of security:

• Signal: contact details available on request via our main editorial email. Signal encrypts messages end-to-end and does not store metadata on its servers.
• Encrypted email: reporters can provide PGP public keys on request for encrypted email communication.
• Standard email (editorial@cryptofox.news) — less secure, but acceptable for less sensitive communications.

Reporters are advised not to discuss confidential sources or sensitive stories on unencrypted channels, corporate email systems, or any platform that could be subject to legal discovery without seeking legal advice first.

CryptoFox will resist any legal attempt to compel the disclosure of a confidential source. If we receive a court order, subpoena, or other legal demand seeking to identify a source, we will immediately seek legal representation and oppose the demand through all available legal channels.

We will not voluntarily disclose source identity to law enforcement, regulatory bodies, or any other party without a court order. And even with a court order, we will pursue all available appeals before complying.

Our ability to resist such demands depends on the legal jurisdiction in which we operate and the specific circumstances of the case. We cannot guarantee that a court order can always be successfully resisted — but we can guarantee that we will use every available legal mechanism to try.