The crypto world has lost trust due to three major issues:
Firstly, there is the difference between what insiders know and what outsiders know. Projects are the ones who decide what information they release. They share good news and hide problems. This makes investors not only left without information but also made vulnerable.
Secondly, crypto media is not doing what is expected of it. The disclosure condition in crypto media is very poor.
Thirdly, people like to acquire such information that agrees with their already existing idea. The crypto communities, which mainly are the echo chambers, accuse the recitation of any criticism as "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) even if it is absolutely correct.
These problems have been the causes of the crash of Terra/LUNA. Most of the researchers, as early as January 2022, indicated that Terra's stability system was the major source of her troubles - they explained the LUNA-UST relationship could become a scary circle under certain market conditions. However, crypto media warnings were disregarded by the majority; the positive news were covering them up and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) accusations were made. In thousands, investors went to sleep with their life savings without being able to tell the difference between real analysis and marketing, and they woke up with nothing.
We at CoinMinutes apply five principles that define our content to every piece of work we do.
We put transparency at the very top. Not only do we disclose what we know, but also how we come to know it, and even where our understanding is limited.
We certainly are not aware of everything and we let you know that. Instead of acting as if we knew everything for sure, we communicate to you our level of confidence in our analyses. We point out the things that are tentative when we are breaking the news and we update as we confirm the details.
These guarantees, on their own, have a considerable power but when they are combined they create an indestructible framework which results in the trust of the readers.
How We Process Information
Systematic verification for smarter decisions
Our method of collecting and verifying information has been changed since the time when we have made and published our first erroneous analysis in 2021. At present, we do research, verification, classification, and bias management in a unified manner.
Primary Sources and Verification
As far as it is possible, we always turn to primary sources in the first instance:
We perform the verification of whitepapers by comparing their claims with the real-life implementation, and GitHub repositories (in the past year, we have been diving deep into the smart contract code for more than 300 hours), on-chain data that is not only analyzed via the tools of our own making but also by discussions with the core teams (But we do not accept the official stories unconditionally).
The biggest challenge for us is to maintain a good thoroughness-to-speed ratio. The present verification system which we use is the result of our past experience with the matter.
Breaking news: Only in cases when the happenings are supported by the data (e.g., "As of 2:15 PM EST, UST price on major exchanges has dropped to $0.94") do we inform the public about them. Such pieces of information need to be confirmed by at least two independent data sources.
How We Classify Information
After a lot of discussion, we finalized the classification system that is used by us. We initially tried a six-tier system that was too complicated and a three-tier system that did not work well for the emerging information. The four-level system we employ now is a compromise that none of the team members really likes - but the readers take it as more understandable than the ones we tried before:
Verified (conformation of the information by several sources), Supported (the strong evidence is there, but the verification is not complete), Developing (only a few pieces of information that need more confirmation), and Speculative (possible logical scenarios with very few pieces of evidence at present).
Dealing With Bias
It is not possible to completely abolish bias from the system - we are only human. What we do is to implement certain procedures through which we can detect bias and lessen its effect:
In the case of controversial subjects, we select such members of the team who hold opposite views and let them collaborate on the analysis. We also have a "red team" whose role is to challenge our arguments. The emotional language is specifically looked for in the review process of each article. We monitor our level of correctness over a period of time so that we can detect the types of bias that are deeply rooted in our system.
Find More Information:
How CoinMinutes Equips Readers to Make Informed Crypto Choices
Coinminutes Cryptocurrency: Reviews and Comparisons
What We Can't Do
Acknowledging limits, striving for progress
Even though we commit ourselves to be thorough in our works, yet, we still have certain limitations that I must acknowledge:
Budget constraint is a frequent guest, which puts the staff in such situations where they have to make hard and unpleasant decisions most of the time. Obviously, in such a case of three different major stories breaking simultaneously, what we do is decide which one to deep-dive and give the other stories only a brief mention. Our talking about these decisions being the staff room turning into the arena for heated debates is becoming the issue again.
One of the major factors blocking our path is the increasing technical side of the cryptography field. To be precise, there have been situations when we had to delay our reports for several weeks due to our consultations with specialized researchers being unfinished.
How Readers Can Assist
You are instrumental in improving our information:
Deliberately think through our material. Don't take sources for granted, check the proof, and weigh up other explanations. The critical thinking guide which is located in our resource section, provides you with exact questions that you need to ask about any crypto information.
Notify us if you detect issues or if you see that we can improve in some other way. Our feedback form is more of a question than a statement and it asks questions related to accuracy, clarity, and completeness instead of asking for general impressions.
If you happen to have expert knowledge, please share it with us. Our contributor guidelines outline the ways in which technical experts can help by engaging in our review process or by providing content.
Engage wisely in the discussion forums that we support and where we facilitate evidence-based reasoning and respectful conversation.
By your involvement, Coinminutes Crypto becomes not only another publication but a community that is dedicated to delivering accurate information.
