Fact-Checking Policy

Accuracy is the foundation of everything TBN Express publishes. This policy explains how we check claims before they reach you and how we put things right when we get something wrong. It works with our Sources & Verification page and our Editorial Policy.

What we check

Every article is reviewed for factual accuracy before publication. We verify names, dates, technical descriptions and any claim about how a protocol works against primary sources — project documentation, official announcements and on-chain records — rather than relying on second-hand summaries.

How we handle numbers

Market figures such as prices, market capitalisation and 24-hour changes are not typed in by hand. They are pulled live from third-party data providers through our tools, so the number you see is the number the provider reports. We do not estimate, round for effect or invent figures. Where a statistic cannot be verified, we leave it out.

Our pre-publication checks

Before a piece goes live, an editor works through a short, consistent set of checks:

Sources over speculation

We distinguish clearly between established fact, reasonable analysis and opinion. We do not publish unverified rumours, anonymous “insider” claims or fabricated data about holdings, flows or named individuals. Our full approach to sourcing is set out in our Sources & Verification page.

When we get it wrong

No process is perfect. When an error slips through, we fix it openly and explain what changed through our corrections process. Substantive corrections carry a dated note; minor fixes are made without a formal note. You can always contact the editorial team to flag something that looks wrong.

Related standards

This policy sits alongside our Editorial Policy, Methodology and AI Use & Disclosure policy, which together describe how we research, source and build the data behind the site.

Primary sources first

Whenever a claim can be traced to its origin, we go there. That means official documentation, on-chain data, regulatory filings, primary announcements and protocol specifications rather than second-hand summaries. Aggregated reporting and social-media posts can point us toward a story, but they are starting points for verification, not evidence in themselves. The closer we can get to the original source of a fact, the more confident we are publishing it — and the easier it is for readers to check our work through the links we provide.

Claims about projects and protocols

The crypto space is full of confident assertions about what a project does, how its token works, or what a network will deliver. We treat marketing language as a claim to be checked, not a fact to be repeated. Where we can verify a technical detail against documentation or on-chain behaviour, we report it plainly; where we cannot, we attribute it to whoever is making the claim and say it is unverified. We do not lend the credibility of a news page to promises we have not been able to substantiate.

Rumours, leaks and unconfirmed reports

Speed should never come at the cost of accuracy. When a story is circulating but unconfirmed, we either hold it until it can be verified or label it clearly as unconfirmed and explain what is and is not known. We do not present rumour as fact, and we are especially cautious with claims that could move a market, because the incentive to plant or exaggerate such stories is high. Restraint in these moments is a feature of our process, not a failure of nerve.

Numbers, quotes and visuals

Figures are checked against their source and, for live market data, drawn from our providers rather than transcribed by hand. Quotes are verified against the original and used in context rather than trimmed to change their meaning. Images and screenshots are checked for authenticity and relevance before use. These checks apply to every element of a page, because a single unverified detail can undermine an otherwise sound report.

Why rigorous checking matters in crypto

Few fields combine high stakes and low signal quite like crypto. Misinformation spreads quickly, claims are often made by parties with a direct financial interest, and a single confidently stated falsehood can influence how people treat real money. That environment is exactly why we hold the line on verification rather than relaxing it for speed. Checking a claim against its primary source, attributing what we cannot confirm, and declining to repeat unverified rumour are not bureaucratic steps — they are what separates journalism from amplification. When the cost of being wrong falls on readers, getting it right is the only acceptable default.

How this fits our wider standards

Fact-checking does not stand alone; it is one link in a chain of standards that govern everything we publish. It works alongside our approach to sources and verification, which sets out how we weigh and corroborate information, and our corrections process, which handles the errors that checking does not catch. Together these form a single commitment: to publish what we can substantiate, attribute what we cannot, and fix what turns out to be wrong. Readers should be able to follow any factual claim on the site back to a source and judge it for themselves, and the links we include are there precisely so that checking our work is always possible rather than something you have to take on trust.

Frequently asked questions