About CryptoInvesting

Who runs this site

CryptoInvesting is a small, independent publication, not a company with a trading desk or a sales team. Articles are published under the CryptoInvesting Team name because the work is collaborative and the standards matter more than any individual by-line. We are deliberately honest about our scale: we would rather tell you plainly that we are a focused editorial project than invent a roster of analysts or credentials we do not have.

What we do bring is a consistent method. Every page is researched against primary sources, written to be read by a real person weighing a real decision, and revisited when the facts move. That discipline — not a headcount — is what makes the information here worth trusting.

What we cover, and who it is for

The site focuses on the practical side of crypto investing: how exchanges, wallets, lending and staking services work; what the fees, risks and protections really are; and how the main options compare when you line them up honestly. We write guides that explain a topic from first principles, comparisons that weigh two or more choices side by side, and reviews that assess a single platform in depth.

Our reader is a self-directed investor — usually a beginner or improver — who wants to understand a decision before making it. We do not give personalised financial advice, publish price predictions, or chase whatever token is trending this week. If a topic is mostly speculation dressed up as analysis, you will not find us covering it.

How we make money

CryptoInvesting is funded by referral links, and nothing else. When we mention a platform we think is worth considering, some of those links are affiliate links: if you sign up through one, the platform may pay us a commission at no extra cost to you. We do not run display advertising, we do not sell your data, and we do not accept payment to publish a review or to change a verdict.

That funding model only works if you can trust what we say, so we keep a hard line between the commercial and the editorial: which platforms we cover, what we praise, and what we criticise are editorial decisions, made before any commission is considered. You can read the full disclosure in our Terms of Use.

Our editorial standards

These are the principles every page is held to. They are deliberately about outcomes you can check, not internal process:

• Every claim is verified. Numerical claims — rates, fees, limits, security features, regulatory status — are checked against primary sources such as the platform's own documentation, regulators and official filings, not repeated from other blogs.
• Volatile figures are date-stamped. Anything that changes over time is marked with the date it was true, so you can judge for yourself whether it is still current.
• Reviews are honest, not glowing. We do not award perfect scores — no real platform is flawless — and every review states the drawbacks, not just the strengths.
• We correct rather than quietly age. When the facts change, or we get something wrong, we fix the page and update its modification date to reflect the real change.

On production: content on this site is produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor before publication. Every factual claim — rates, fees, security features — is verified against primary sources and date-stamped. When facts change or we get something wrong, we correct the page and update its modification date. We name the process, not the tools, because the standard is what matters to you.

For how we assess and score individual platforms specifically, see How We Review.

Getting in touch

If you spot an error, have a correction, or want to ask about something we have published, email us at [email protected]. We read every message and aim to reply within a couple of working days. Corrections are especially welcome — flagging a stale figure or a mistake genuinely helps the next reader.