Methodology version 2.0 · 11 August 2026
How we research crypto products
Our goal is to make a complicated product easier to assess. Public research cannot remove financial, security, or regulatory risk.
Research workflow
Define the reader question
We identify the decision the page should help with and the facts that could materially change that decision.
Collect primary sources
We start with official terms, fee schedules, product documentation, regulator records, incident disclosures, audit reports, and public repositories.
Resolve contradictions
When sources disagree, we use the most direct and current primary source. We record unresolved limits or omit the claim.
Assess by product type
The relevant dimensions differ for a custodial exchange, self-custody wallet, DEX, card, casino, or tax tool.
Publish with limits and sources
Material claims should be accompanied by useful source links, a source-check date, and clear disclosure of affiliate relationships.
Evidence hierarchy
A source is useful only when it actually supports the nearby claim. We prefer a current first-party or official record over a copied summary.
| Source level | Examples and use |
|---|---|
| Primary | Provider documentation, terms, regulator records, incident reports, audit reports, status pages, public code, and on-chain records |
| Independent | Reputable datasets and reporting that directly document a claim and identify their method or source |
| Supporting | App-store feedback, review platforms, community reports, and forum discussions used to identify patterns—not as sole proof |
What an assessment covers
The site does not publish product scores. Each review states the relevant evidence, product limits, and material risks.
Affiliate compensation does not change an editorial conclusion. A shutdown, security incident, fee change, or discontinued product requires a new source check and a revised conclusion.
| Product type | Dimensions considered |
|---|---|
| Centralized exchanges | Security and custody, fees, product access, user experience, support, and regulatory information |
| Decentralized exchanges | Liquidity, trading costs, smart-contract and operational risk, supported networks, and user experience |
| Wallets | Security model, incident history, recovery design, supported assets, usability, features, and value |
| Cards | Availability, fees, rewards and limits, custody model, supported regions, and issuer information |
| Tax tools | Supported integrations, pricing, calculation workflow, exports, support, and jurisdictional limitations |
| Crypto casinos | Licensing claims, custody and withdrawal terms, game providers, limits, responsible-gambling controls, and user-risk disclosures |
First-hand testing standard
We use first-hand language only when the page identifies the test date, method, device or network, and evidence for the exact claim. Evidence can include a screenshot, test note, or transaction record. Without dated evidence, the review describes what public sources show.
Updates, corrections, and historical pages
We do not promise a fixed update cadence for every page. A visible review date should change only after a meaningful source check, not solely to make the page appear fresh.
When a product closes or becomes obsolete, the page may remain available as a clearly labelled historical record. Active calls to action, prices, and availability claims should be removed.
If a page contains a material unresolved error, it may be excluded from search while it is corrected. Readers can report errors with the page URL and a supporting source.
Affiliate and commercial policy
Some links are marked as sponsored or affiliate links. InsideCryptoReview may receive compensation if a reader uses one. Providers cannot change a conclusion, suppress documented criticism, or review copy before publication as a condition of coverage.
Bonus amounts and eligibility rules can change. The provider’s current terms control. A headline maximum can require conditions that do not apply to most readers.
Limits of this methodology
Public documentation can be incomplete, inaccurate, or changed without notice. Security audits reduce uncertainty but do not prove that a product is safe. User reviews can be manipulated. Regulatory status varies by entity and jurisdiction.