CryptosMedia aims to publish accurate, evidence-based cryptocurrency research. Because crypto protocols, token economics, governance systems, security events, and regulations can change quickly, published content may occasionally require correction or clarification. This policy explains how we handle reported errors and material updates.
Last Updated: August 2026
What We Consider a Correction
A correction is appropriate when a published statement is materially inaccurate, misleading, unsupported by the cited evidence, or no longer correct because the article presents a time-sensitive fact without adequate date context. Examples can include an incorrect token-supply figure, wrong exploit amount, inaccurate protocol mechanic, outdated governance rule, broken attribution, or a statement that overstates what an audit or official source actually established.
Corrections vs. Routine Updates
Not every edit is a correction. We may update wording, formatting, internal links, source links, screenshots, tables, or explanatory context without treating those changes as factual corrections. We may also refresh market figures or other clearly time-sensitive information as part of normal maintenance.
When an error materially changes the meaning of an article or its assessment, we aim to correct the underlying statement and, where useful for readers, make the nature of the change clear in the article.
How to Report a Possible Error
If you believe an article contains an error, please use our Contact Us page and include:
- the URL of the article;
- the specific statement or section you believe is incorrect;
- a short explanation of the issue; and
- supporting evidence or a primary source, if available.
Clear, source-backed correction requests are easier to review than general disagreement with an article’s conclusion.
How We Review Correction Requests
We compare the disputed statement with the strongest relevant evidence available. For protocol mechanics, tokenomics, governance, security, or legal matters, we prefer official documentation, governance records, explorers, security disclosures, audit reports, court or regulatory records, and other direct sources where appropriate.
Third-party reports can provide useful context, but a claim is not automatically accepted or rejected because one secondary source disagrees with another. When reliable sources conflict, we may revise the article to explain the uncertainty rather than force a definitive conclusion.
Opinion and Analysis
Some CryptosMedia content contains editorial judgments about risk, decentralization, sustainability, transparency, or competitive position. A reader’s disagreement with an interpretation is not necessarily a factual error. However, the facts supporting that interpretation should still be accurate and represented fairly.
Security and Scam Allegations
Claims involving exploits, fraud, scams, misconduct, or regulatory action require extra care. We distinguish confirmed events from allegations, risk indicators, and editorial concerns. If new credible evidence materially changes the basis for a security or scam-related conclusion, we will review the relevant wording and update it where necessary.
Published URLs and Correction History
We generally preserve the existing published URL when correcting or updating an article. Changing a slug solely because an article has been refreshed can create broken links, redirect chains, and unnecessary indexing problems. A material correction should improve the existing page rather than erase its history through an avoidable URL change.
No Pay-to-Remove Corrections
CryptosMedia does not accept payment to hide a verified factual error, remove a legitimate correction, or change an evidence-based conclusion. Commercial requests and editorial corrections are handled separately.
Contact
Correction requests can be submitted through our Contact Us page. For more information about our research and publication standards, see the Editorial Policy.