Trust depends on accuracy, so this page explains exactly how we fact-check and correct our content. We believe readers deserve to know not just what we publish, but how we verify it — and what happens when we get something wrong.

Table of Contents

• Why Fact-Checking Matters
• Our Fact-Checking Process
• Sources We Trust (and Why)
• How We Handle Contested or Evolving Claims
• Who Reviews Our Content
• How to Report an Error
• How We Handle Corrections
• Types of Corrections We Issue
• Updates Over Time
• Editorial Independence and Fact-Checking
• Our Commitment to You

Why Fact-Checking Matters

The internet is full of information — but not all of it is accurate. In areas like finance, cryptocurrency, trading, and investment, a single wrong figure can cost readers real money. A misleading statistic about a platform’s fees, an outdated regulation, or a misquoted interest rate isn’t just an embarrassment — it’s a genuine harm.

That’s why fact-checking isn’t a box we tick at the end of production. It’s built into every stage of how we create content at 24 Bit Deposit. From the first draft to every future update, accuracy is the standard we hold ourselves to — not as a policy formality, but as a basic obligation to our readers.

We also believe transparency is part of accuracy. Knowing where a claim comes from lets you judge it for yourself. So wherever possible, we link to primary sources directly in the text. If we can’t link to a source, we name it clearly enough that you can find it independently.

Our Fact-Checking Process

Before an article is published, claims of fact — figures, dates, names, and statistics — are checked against reputable primary sources wherever possible. Where a topic is contested or evolving, we attribute claims and link to the original source so readers can verify for themselves. Articles covering specialised areas are written or reviewed by someone familiar with the subject.

Here’s what that process looks like in practice:

Step 1: Drafting with sources built in

Writers are expected to note their sources as they go — not after the fact. Every specific claim (a percentage, a date, a named statistic) should have a source attached before the draft reaches review. This prevents the situation where a fact “sounds right” but was never actually verified.

Step 2: Editorial review

A second set of eyes reviews every piece before it goes live. The reviewer’s job isn’t just to check grammar — it’s to flag unsourced claims, question figures that seem off, and push back on vague assertions. If a claim can’t be verified, it either gets sourced or removed.

Step 3: Source quality check

Not all sources are equal. We distinguish between primary sources (original data, official documents, first-hand accounts), secondary sources (reporting and analysis based on primary sources), and tertiary sources (summaries, aggregators, encyclopaedias). We prefer primary. When we rely on secondary sources, we aim to name them clearly and assess whether they themselves are credible.

Step 4: Pre-publication final check

Before publishing, we do a final pass specifically looking at numbers, names, and dates — the elements most likely to introduce error. Links to external sources are tested to confirm they go to the right destination.

Sources We Trust (and Why)

We don’t maintain a single approved source list, because the right source depends on the subject. But we apply consistent criteria when evaluating any source.

We prioritise sources that are:

• Primary and official — government agencies, regulatory bodies, central banks, company filings, and academic institutions publishing original research.
• Transparent about methodology — data reports that explain how figures were gathered and calculated, so readers can assess the limits of the data.
• Independent of commercial interest — sources that have no financial stake in a particular outcome being reported.
• Consistently reliable — outlets or institutions with a track record of accuracy and clear correction practices of their own.

We are cautious about sources that:

• Are published by companies with a direct commercial interest in the subject being reported.
• Rely on anonymous or unverifiable data.
• Cannot be cross-referenced against another credible source.
• Are significantly out of date for a fast-moving topic.

When we use a source that falls into a “cautious” category — for example, industry data from a company that also sells products in the space — we say so in the text, so readers can factor that context in.

How We Handle Contested or Evolving Claims

Some topics don’t have a single correct answer. Regulatory landscapes change. Economic data gets revised. Expert opinion is genuinely divided. In these cases, accuracy doesn’t mean picking one side — it means representing the state of evidence honestly.

When a claim is contested, we:

• Present the range of credible positions, not just the most convenient one.
• Attribute specific claims to the source making them, rather than stating them as established fact.
• Note where the evidence is limited, preliminary, or disputed.
• Revisit the content when new evidence settles (or further complicates) the question.

We don’t use hedging language as a rhetorical trick to say something without defending it. If we’re not confident something is true, we either don’t say it or we make our uncertainty explicit.

Who Reviews Our Content

Articles on technical subjects are written or reviewed by contributors who have direct knowledge of the topic. For finance and trading content, that means familiarity with how the instruments work, what the regulatory context is, and what readers at different experience levels need to understand.

We don’t require contributors to hold specific credentials — credentials aren’t always the best proxy for subject-matter knowledge, especially in fast-moving fields. What we do require is that contributors can demonstrate their understanding in the work itself: by sourcing claims correctly, explaining concepts accurately, and not overstating what the evidence shows.

When a piece covers a highly regulated area — such as investment products, financial advice, or medical information — we apply additional scrutiny to ensure the content does not make claims that require professional qualification to make responsibly.

For more on how we select and work with contributors, see our Editorial Policy.

How to Report an Error

If you spot something inaccurate, please tell us through the contact page or email diashah8383@gmail.com. Include the article URL and a short description of the issue, and a source if you have one. We review every report we receive.

You don’t need to be certain something is wrong to report it. If something looks off or doesn’t match what you know from another credible source, let us know. We’d rather investigate a report that turns out to be fine than miss a genuine error because a reader wasn’t sure it was worth flagging.

When you report an error, it helps to include:

• The URL of the article where you found the issue.
• The specific sentence or figure you believe is incorrect.
• What you think the correct information is, and why (a source link is ideal, but not required).

You don’t need to fill in all three — a report with just the URL and a brief description is enough for us to start investigating.

How We Handle Corrections

When we confirm an error, we fix it promptly. For minor typos or formatting we simply update the article. For errors that affect the meaning or facts of a piece, we correct the content and note that a correction was made, so the change is transparent to readers. Serious factual errors are prioritised and addressed as quickly as we can verify the correct information.

Our aim is to resolve confirmed factual errors within 48 hours of verification. In practice, many corrections happen faster than that. Errors that require significant research to resolve — for example, because the correct information requires consulting multiple sources or reaching out to a subject expert — may take longer. We will not rush to a correction that could itself introduce a new error.

We don’t quietly delete content or change claims without acknowledgement. If a change affects the substance of what an article says, we note it.

Types of Corrections We Issue

Not every change to an article is the same. Here’s how we distinguish between different types of updates:

Minor corrections

Typos, broken links, formatting issues, and small phrasing errors that don’t affect the meaning or accuracy of the piece. These are fixed silently — no correction note is needed because the substance of the article hasn’t changed.

Factual corrections

Errors in specific claims — a wrong figure, an incorrect date, a misattributed quote, or an outdated fact that has since changed. These are corrected and noted at the top or bottom of the article with a brief explanation of what was wrong and what the correct information is.

Example correction note: “Correction (15 August 2026): An earlier version of this article stated the fee was 0.5%. The correct figure is 0.25%. We have updated the article accordingly.”

Significant updates

Sometimes information changes not because we got it wrong, but because the situation changed — a regulator issued new guidance, a company updated its terms, or new data superseded the old. In these cases we update the content and note the update date. This is distinct from a correction: we weren’t wrong at the time of publishing, but the article needs to reflect current reality.

Retractions

In the rare case where an article contains errors serious enough that the piece as a whole is misleading, and those errors cannot be corrected without substantially rewriting it, we may retract the article. A retraction notice explains what the article claimed, what was wrong, and why we removed it. We don’t delete the URL — we replace the content with the retraction notice so the record is clear.

Updates Over Time

Separately from corrections, we revisit older articles and refresh them when information changes — see our Editorial Policy for how we produce and maintain content.

In areas like financial regulation, cryptocurrency markets, and trading platforms, information can change quickly. An article that was accurate when published may be misleading six months later if rules have changed or platforms have updated their products. We try to catch these situations proactively rather than waiting for a reader to flag them.

Articles that cover time-sensitive topics are flagged for periodic review. When we update an article for currency rather than to correct an error, we update the “last reviewed” date and note what changed in the update.

Editorial Independence and Fact-Checking

Our fact-checking process is not influenced by advertisers, sponsors, or commercial partners. An article about a product or platform is held to the same accuracy standards whether or not that company advertises with us. If we can’t verify a positive claim made by a commercial partner, we don’t publish it as fact.

This applies in both directions. We do not inflate positive claims about partners, and we do not suppress accurate negative information about them. Our Sponsored Content Policy explains in detail how commercial relationships are disclosed and how they are kept separate from editorial decisions.

The goal is simple: readers should be able to trust that what we publish reflects our honest assessment of the evidence, not the preferences of anyone who pays to be associated with us.

Our Commitment to You

No publication gets everything right. The question isn’t whether errors happen — they do, at every outlet, at every level of resourcing. The question is what you do when they happen.

Our commitment is straightforward: we will check our work before we publish it, we will correct it when we get it wrong, and we will be transparent about both the error and the correction. We won’t hide mistakes or minimise them. And we will keep improving this process as we learn what works.

If you have questions about this policy or want to discuss a specific concern, use our contact page. We read every message.

This policy was last reviewed in August 2026.