Editorial
Editorial policy
How this site is funded, what that does and does not influence, how we verify what we publish, and what we will not print at any price.
Commercial disclosure
We think the honest way to handle affiliate revenue is to disclose it prominently, publish the scoring method so anyone can check the reasoning, and then let the content demonstrate independence.
On that last point, the evidence we would offer is what the reviews actually say. Every exchange review on this site tells readers to avoid the consumer buy button, which is the largest revenue source in retail crypto. Our top-rated platform's review states directly that its card pricing is materially worse than its spot pricing and recommends the cheaper route. We rank platforms we have no relationship with inside our top five on cost, and we mark down platforms on funding reliability and product gaps regardless of any relationship.
We have no commercial relationship of any kind with any crypto kiosk operator. Given that a substantial part of this site documents how expensive those machines are, that seems worth stating explicitly.
What partner status does not buy
- A higher score, or any change to the five weighted criteria on our methodology page
- Removal or softening of criticism
- Placement in a comparison table other than by score
- Approval or review rights over anything we publish
- Inclusion in a "best" list a platform has not earned on the published criteria
Platforms do not see our content before publication and do not have the ability to request changes. Where a platform tells us we have a fact wrong, we check it against the primary source and correct it if they are right — the same as we would for any reader.
Sourcing
We prefer primary sources and name them on the page.
Regulation comes from Nevada statute, the Financial Institutions Division and federal agencies, not from other people's summaries. Licence numbers and status are checked at NMLS Consumer Access and the FinCEN MSB register. Fees come from each provider's own published pricing. Fraud data comes from the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center. Company failures come from bankruptcy filings and contemporaneous reporting.
Where a figure is our own characterisation — a corridor pricing range, for instance — we label it as indicative and explain what it is based on. Where we cannot confirm something, we say so rather than filling the gap with a plausible number. Several pages on this site contain the sentence "as far as we can establish", and it is doing real work.
Corrections
We correct errors promptly. Material corrections — anything that would change a reader's decision — are noted on the page rather than made silently. Typographical and formatting fixes are not.
To report an error, write to contact@nevada-crypto.com with the page and, where you can, a source. Corrections take priority over every other kind of enquiry.
What we will not publish
Never
- Price predictions, targets or forecasts
- Recommendations to buy or sell a specific asset
- Anything framed as personalised financial, legal or tax advice
- Guaranteed-return claims, from anyone
- Invented experts, fabricated case studies or fake testimonials
- Guest posts, sponsored articles or paid link placements
- Rankings influenced by commercial relationships
- Promotion of unlicensed or offshore platforms
Always
- The all-in cost, including spreads
- Named primary sources for factual claims
- An explicit statement when something is our opinion
- An explicit statement when we could not confirm something
- The risks alongside the mechanics
- A review date on every page
The point about invented experts is worth expanding, because it is common practice in this sector. A great deal of crypto content attributes generic material to a fabricated analyst with a plausible biography. We publish under the site's name, and where a page refers to our own testing or observation, that is genuinely our own work.
Independence from the subject
We are not a crypto business. We do not operate a platform, hold customer funds, run a fund, issue a token or provide any financial service. We are not licensed as a money transmitter, a broker-dealer or an investment adviser, and we do not need to be, because we do none of those things.
That distance is deliberate. It means we have no position to talk up and no book to protect.
Our stance on the industry
Worth stating so readers can calibrate.
We are neither promoters nor opponents. We think cryptocurrency is a legitimate asset class with real uses and real risks, that most retail participants pay far more than they need to, and that the industry's standard interface design is deliberately structured to make that happen. Our editorial energy goes into the gap between what things cost and what they need to cost.
We are consistently critical of crypto kiosk pricing, of consumer buy buttons, of spread-priced platforms that do not itemise the spread, and of anything sold on guaranteed returns. We are consistently positive about published licensing, self-custody with a recovery plan, and boring bank transfers.
None of that is a view on whether you should own any crypto. That question is yours.
Accessibility and privacy
We aim to meet common accessibility standards: semantic markup, keyboard navigation, sufficient colour contrast, and tables that remain readable on a phone. If something on this site is difficult to use, we would genuinely like to hear about it.
On privacy: we do not require an account, do not run a newsletter sign-up wall, and do not sell reader data. Our privacy policy sets out what is collected.