On most crypto blogs the "corrections" page is decoration. There is a link in the footer, a page with a one-line stub, and the page never gets updated. The point of having one was to look responsible, not to actually be responsible. This page is not that.

Across the ten years I have been in crypto, I have watched too many writers silently rewrite their own posts — a confidently bullish call from six months ago gets edited overnight into "I always said there was risk," after a token crashes. I have caught myself reaching for the same trick more than once, and it is a corrosive habit: it cheats the reader who came in late, and it cheats the writer's own ability to learn from being wrong. Eventually I committed to never doing it again.

That commitment is what this page exists to enforce. Every time I change something material in any article on this site, the change gets logged here with a date, a short note explaining what changed, and (where the change is significant) a link to the archived prior version on the Wayback Machine. Errors get fixed. Opinions get updated when new evidence arrives. None of it gets buried.

§1Why a corrections page even exists

Crypto moves fast, and writing about it sets every article up to age badly. Any piece published today can be partially or completely wrong three months from now:

This page is the public record of every change. It exists for two related reasons: accountability to you, and discipline for me. Because every edit ends up logged here in plain sight, I have to think harder about the edit before making it.

§2The four rules

The discipline is short enough to fit on a napkin:

  1. Wrong gets fixed — there is no version of this site where an article is treated as final-on-publication and stays uncorrected because changing it would be inconvenient
  2. Material errors get a banner — if I wrote a wrong contract address or misstated a critical fact, the article header carries a red-bordered correction notice for one week minimum after the fix lands
  3. Archived before the fix — every material edit is preceded by submitting the live version to web.archive.org, so the prior text remains publicly searchable and citable
  4. No silent opinion edits — when my view of something changes, the new view gets dated and added; the old view is not deleted, only marked as superseded. Opinions can be wrong, that is fine. Pretending they were never wrong is not fine

"Opinions are allowed to be wrong, and they are allowed to change. What they are not allowed to do is pretend they were never wrong and never changed."

§3Correction log

Reverse chronological. The oldest entry is at the bottom.

§4How to tell me something is wrong

There are four channels — X (Twitter) is the fastest, because I am there for most of the working day. Email handles long-form or attachments better. Telegram for quick exchanges. Weibo for Chinese-language readers.

X (Twitter) · fastest @mor_xiaogan Telegram · best for back-and-forth @txzx603 Email · for long content + attachments [email protected] Weibo · Chinese-language Gan

When you submit a factual correction please try to include: the article URL + the specific wrong passage (a screenshot helps) + the version you believe is correct (optional). With those three things in hand I can usually verify and patch within 24-72 hours, depending on time zone alignment.

§5What does not count as a correction

There is one category of "correction" requests I do not act on: disagreement with my opinion is not an error to be fixed.

Some real examples I have received:

Disagreement is not error. If you disagree with something I wrote, X is open and I genuinely enjoy public debate. I will absolutely change my mind when shown new evidence — but the path is "here is data that contradicts your premise," not "I think you should change your conclusion to mine."

However: anything that is genuinely factual — a broken link, a wrong number, a misdated event, an incorrect contract address, a misattributed research-report author, a miscredited source quote — gets fixed immediately, gets logged here, and gets a notation in the original article pointing to this page.

§6For US / EU / UK readers · corrections supplement

This is the section that matters most if you are reading from the United States, the European Union or the United Kingdom — partly because the major US and EU publishers have spent two centuries refining what a credible corrections process looks like, and partly because Google's Helpful Content Update and quality-rater guidelines now explicitly look for the kind of disciplined-corrections behaviour that established publishers have been doing forever. A live corrections page is one of the clearest EEAT signals a site can offer, and the FTC's deceptive-practices doctrine treats a sustained pattern of silent edits as actionable.

Why corrections matter for EEAT and Helpful Content

Google's Helpful Content Update, rolled out across 2022-2024, explicitly prioritises sites that demonstrate Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness — the four EEAT pillars. A maintained, dated, transparent corrections trail is one of the strongest possible signals for the "Trustworthiness" pillar, because it shows the writer has skin in the game, takes accountability for mistakes, and treats readers as adults rather than as a passive audience. Google's quality-rater guidelines (the public document used to train ranking signals) call out corrections policies explicitly as a high-quality signal. Crypto publishers without corrections pages are increasingly being deranked by the algorithm — and rightly so. The Helpful Content classifier penalises sites that show no editorial revision behaviour because they are statistically more likely to be either AI-generated or commercially conflicted.

How US/EU/UK readers should submit corrections

Three working channels, in order of how quickly I will respond:

For US and EU readers specifically, a correction request sent on a Friday afternoon (US time) or Saturday morning (EU time) typically gets a reply within 24 hours because that is when I am usually awake and at the desk. A request sent at 3am EU time may take up to 72 hours. There is no formal SLA and I do not pretend there is one, but the response window has been consistent for two years.

The historical log stays public, always

Every correction entry on this page stays public forever. Old entries do not get cleaned up, paginated off, or memory-holed. This is the single biggest divergence between how a serious publisher handles corrections and how a "delete the tweet, pretend it never happened" influencer handles them. The discipline matters because the historical log is the only thing that lets a later reader verify that the corrections process is real and not theatre. Without a permanent log, anyone can claim "I always correct my errors" — the log is what makes that claim auditable.

Contrast with delete-the-tweet culture

The Twitter / X norm in crypto over the last cycle has been the opposite: a coin gets shilled, the call goes wrong, the original tweet gets deleted, and the same account starts shilling the next coin without ever having reckoned with the prior mistake. Some prominent crypto accounts delete tens of thousands of tweets per year. The result is a permanent fog where no one can audit who was right and who was wrong over a meaningful period of time. The corrections-page discipline is the opposite of that. It says: here is what I wrote, here is when I changed it, here is why I changed it, and here is the version that came before. If I am wrong about something, you will be able to find evidence of that here. That is the contract.

The major-publisher corrections playbook

The closest analogues to what I am trying to do here are the corrections processes at The New York Times, the Financial Times, Bloomberg and Reuters. None of them are perfect, but all of them have spent decades refining what credible corrections look like:

None of those publishers is operating at this site's scale, and I am one person rather than an editorial desk. But the underlying discipline — date everything, never silently edit, log corrections in a permanent public place, bidirectional link between the corrected article and the correction entry — translates one-to-one. This page tries to implement the same discipline at single-author scale.

The major-correction process · how a real fix happens

What a substantive correction actually looks like, step by step, when something material has to change:

  1. Triage · I receive a credible report (email / DM / Telegram). I verify the underlying claim independently using primary sources — not just the reporter's framing of it. Time budget: 1-2 hours
  2. Archive · before editing anything, I submit the current live URL to web.archive.org so the prior text becomes permanently citable
  3. Fix · the article is updated in place, with a dated correction notation appended near the top in red-bordered styling for the first week
  4. Log here · a new entry is added to the timeline above with a short description of what changed and why
  5. Notify, where applicable · if the original error was egregious enough that I want to make sure readers see the correction, a short X post links to the corrections log entry. Quiet corrections for minor things, public corrections for the things that matter

Total turnaround for a credible correction: typically 24-72 hours from initial report to logged fix. Genuinely complex corrections (where the underlying claim itself is contested and needs deeper verification) can take longer, in which case I respond first with "I have received this and am verifying, expect resolution by [date]."

What "major" means · the taxonomy

Not every change is a "correction." The taxonomy I use, borrowed roughly from the AP and Reuters style guides:

§7Contact

The four contact channels above all work. Email is the most reliable for anything requiring a paper trail, X is the fastest for short messages. For corrections specifically, please put "Correction: [article URL]" in the subject line or first line of the message so it gets routed correctly.

If your report is escalated to a logged correction in §3 above, you will see your contribution acknowledged in the log entry (anonymously by default, with attribution if you ask). The contributors who have caught real errors over the years are the reason this page is worth maintaining.

Last updated · 2026-05-28 Per-article correction notations are maintained in the article-page timeline (rollout in progress)