Editorial Guidelines

Block Magnates covers crypto, blockchain technology and cybersecurity. Article credits identify the author and whether editorial review is completed or pending. These guidelines explain the standards we apply to our journalism and how readers can hold us accountable.

Editorial review

The author credit identifies who wrote an article. “Reviewed by Block Magnates” identifies editorial review by our publication’s editor, using our company profile. It is an organizational credit, not the name of an additional author.

Completed human editorial review is our normal publication standard. Review checks accuracy, sourcing, clarity and context; analysis and opinion also require an editor to challenge the reasoning and headline. AI assistance and automated checks do not constitute that review. If the publisher authorizes an exceptional release while review is pending, the status remains visible. A completed review credit is added only after an editor finishes. Responsibility remains with Block Magnates, and a review credit does not endorse a project or product.

Accuracy and sourcing

• Facts should be traceable to reliable sources. Original documents, data, research and on-record statements take priority where available.
• Links and clear attribution should help readers examine the evidence for themselves.
• Headlines must reflect the reporting. Estimates, allegations and predictions must be identified as such.
• Uncertainty, limitations and relevant context should be clear. An unverified claim must not be presented as an established fact.

Independence and disclosure

Our editorial standard is to put readers’ understanding first. Reporting, opinion and commercial material should be clearly distinguishable. Sponsored content, paid placements and relevant commercial relationships must be disclosed so readers can assess the context.

Commercial interests must not determine factual conclusions or prevent the correction of an error. Coverage should be fair to the people and organizations discussed, and allegations should be attributed and placed in context.

Corrections and updates

Accuracy is an ongoing responsibility. We welcome reports of factual errors, missing context or unclear disclosures. Substantive corrections should explain what changed, and meaningful updates should be dated clearly. Historical reporting should retain its original publication date.

To request a correction, contact our editorial team with the article URL, the passage in question and supporting evidence. We review reported issues and correct verified inaccuracies.

Human accountability

If research, writing or automated tools are used, the same standards apply. Sources, quotations and claims must be checked. Tools do not replace editorial judgment, and responsibility for the work remains with the people publishing it.

News, analysis and community voices

New reporting starts with a check of significant developments from the preceding six hours. When the available evidence requires a wider window, we state the actual event date. We distinguish an event from a source’s publication or update time and do not make older reporting look new.

Every article needs a clear contribution: a verified development, a meaningful primary-source finding, an explanation readers can use or a consequential argument supported by evidence. We distinguish news reporting, explainers, analysis and opinion. An explainer must not be presented as an investigation or revelation. Claims of exclusivity or discovery require original reporting that earns them.

News analysis develops a substantive argument, addresses the strongest fair counterargument and identifies evidence that could change the assessment. A familiar opinion alone is not enough. Headlines and search previews must deliver what the article promises. Claims from interested parties are attributed, and inaccessible originals are not described as independently verified.

We state uncertainty where it changes a claim’s meaning and explain shared methodological limits concisely. Repeated caveats do not replace better reporting, and confidence must remain proportional to the evidence.

Quotations must add specific information, experience, technical insight or consequential disagreement. We do not include generic comments to fill a platform quota or decorate an article. For expert judgments, we prefer named sources with relevant, verified expertise and disclose material affiliations. A public handle can contribute useful, checkable information without being treated as an expert.

Community quotations are checked against the original discussion and identified with a public handle, platform, date and source link. We label translations and older reactions. A selected Reddit, Hacker News, Bitcointalk or other forum comment is an individual opinion, not a measure of community consensus.

Material AI assistance in research or writing is disclosed accurately in a concise article note. AI-generated illustrations carry a separate credit and are treated as conceptual artwork, not documentary evidence. Sources, figures and quotations remain subject to the same verification standards. We do not invent reviewers or conceal pending review to suggest authority.

Screenshots and documentary evidence

We prioritize depth and usefulness over publishing volume. Each table, quote box, screenshot or embed must clarify something the surrounding prose does not already deliver. There is no visual quota. Presentation and machine-readable structure support reporting; neither establishes journalistic quality.

When a visual source helps explain a finding, we use a real browser capture, identify its source and date, and explain what it establishes. Screenshots record what a source displayed; they do not independently prove every claim on the page.

Editorial boxes, arrows and other markings are labelled as our annotations. Crops and redactions must preserve the meaning and relevant qualifications. We do not generate or reconstruct documentary screenshots. Captions, source links and readable article text provide context beyond the image.

Relevant social posts may be embedded after the original author, date and link are checked. Related posts may be grouped for easier reading. We preserve source links and context when an embed cannot load, and never invent posts or engagement figures.

Questions about our work?

Read more about Block Magnates, or send us a question, correction or concern. Transparency includes being open to scrutiny and willing to improve.