Sources & Verification

Good reporting is only as reliable as its sources. This page explains where TBN Express gets its information and how we verify it before publishing. It sits alongside our Fact-Checking Policy and Methodology.

The sources we rely on

We work from a clear hierarchy of sources, preferring primary material we can point you to over second-hand summaries.

How we verify

Where possible we confirm a claim against more than one independent source before treating it as fact. Technical descriptions are checked against documentation; market data is shown live so it can be re-checked at the source. If a claim rests on a single unverifiable source, we either attribute it plainly or leave it out.

How we verify market data

Live figures are not typed in by hand. They are pulled from established providers — CoinGecko as our primary source, CoinPaprika as a fallback, and the Fear & Greed Index from alternative.me — and shown as reported. When a live value is genuinely unavailable, we render nothing rather than substitute a guess. The refresh windows and fallbacks are documented in our Methodology.

On-chain and public data

Blockchains are public ledgers, which means many claims about transactions, supply and protocol activity can be checked directly. Where it strengthens a story, we lean on on-chain records that a reader could inspect independently rather than on private assertions.

Anonymous sources

We prefer named, on-the-record sources. Where a source genuinely needs protection, we honour confidentiality and still seek to corroborate the claim before publishing. We do not build stories on anonymous “insider” tips presented as fact.

Attribution and linking

When information comes from a specific source, we say so and, where appropriate, link to it so you can read the original. Unfamiliar terms are explained in our glossary.

What we will not do

We do not publish fabricated figures, invented quotes or made-up named sources. We do not present model outputs or estimates as confirmed fact. This commitment is part of our Ethics Policy. Read this page alongside our Fact-Checking Policy and Editorial Policy.

Weighing how reliable a source is

Not all sources deserve equal weight, and part of verification is judging which to trust. An official filing or a protocol’s own documentation carries more weight than an anonymous post; a party with first-hand knowledge more than someone relaying hearsay; a source with no stake in the outcome more than one with an obvious interest. We consider who is making a claim, how they would know, and what they have to gain before deciding how much confidence to place in it. The goal is not cynicism but proportion: matching our certainty in print to the strength of the evidence behind it.

Corroboration before publication

For consequential claims, a single source is rarely enough. We look for corroboration — a second independent source, supporting documentation, or verifiable on-chain or market data — before presenting something as established fact. When corroboration is not yet available, we say so and attribute the claim rather than asserting it. This is particularly important for information that could affect how readers view an asset, where the cost of being wrong is high and the temptation to publish first is strongest.

Interests and undisclosed motives

Sources have reasons for talking, and in crypto those reasons often include a financial position. We stay alert to undisclosed interests — a holder talking up an asset, a competitor talking one down, an insider with something to sell. Where a source’s stake is relevant to the story, we disclose it; where we cannot establish motive, we treat the information with extra caution. Verifying a fact includes understanding why someone wants it published.

Our verification mindset

Verification is less a checklist than a habit of doubt applied evenly. Before we publish, we ask how we know what we are claiming, whether the evidence would survive a sceptical reader following our links, and what would have to be true for the claim to be wrong. Confidence in print is earned by evidence, not by how plausible something sounds or how badly we would like it to be true. When the evidence is strong, we state things plainly; when it is thin, we attribute, qualify, or hold the story. That discipline is what makes the sourcing on every page something a reader can actually rely on rather than take on faith.

Putting verification into practice

In day-to-day terms, these principles translate into a few consistent habits. We trace claims to primary material and link to it where we can, so readers can verify rather than simply believe. We seek corroboration before presenting a consequential claim as fact, and we attribute clearly when we cannot. We weigh the reliability and motives of every source, and we treat market and on-chain data as evidence to be drawn from our providers rather than transcribed by hand. Where confidence is limited, our language reflects that honestly instead of overstating what we know. None of this is glamorous, but it is what makes the difference between reporting and rumour — and it is the standard behind every sourced statement we publish.

Frequently asked questions