Telling good information from bad
- Author
- CRYPTO PORT Editorial
- Published
- Updated
- Reading time
- 6 min
In short
Assume that anyone publishing about crypto has an interest: a referral fee, a position they want to see rise, or advertising revenue. Start by asking who is writing and what they gain. Confident predictions and deadline pressure are, by themselves, reasons to disbelieve.
Key points
- Identify the writer's interest first — referral fees, their own holdings, ad revenue
- 'It will definitely rise' asserts something that cannot be known
- Deadline pressure exists to take away your time to think
- Check whether the figures cited trace back to a source you can verify
Definition
Working out whether a piece of crypto information is usable as a basis for a decision, by looking at the publisher's interest, whether it asserts the unknowable, and whether its sources can be checked.
Start with the publisher's interest. An article carrying a sign-up link to an exchange is typically earning a referral fee on accounts opened through it. Someone promoting a specific asset often already holds it. That is not automatically wrong, but it means the piece is not neutral, and you should read it that way. Where the interest is not disclosed at all, that alone lowers the credibility.
Next, look at how things are asserted. Nobody knows future prices. So 'it will definitely rise', 'it cannot fall', and 'guaranteed annual return' are statements of something unknowable. This is not about tone; the claim does not hold up as a claim. The same goes for any 'method that cannot lose'.
Third, check whether you are being hurried. 'Today only', 'first fifty people', 'this link expires in 24 hours' — these exist to deny you time to verify. Genuine decision material is worth the same a week later. When you are being rushed, step away at that point.
Finally, traceability. When a figure or a rule is cited, is a source given, and does it lead to an official body or an original document? 'Experts say' and 'according to industry sources' identify nobody and can be checked by no one. For anything about regulation or tax, the test is whether you can follow it back to the Financial Services Agency or the National Tax Agency.
Watch out for
- · Check this site's statements against primary sources too
- · A 'free lesson' is frequently the entrance to a paid group or an investment pitch
- · Do not treat someone who contacts you directly on social media as an information source
Frequently asked questions
Is paid information more reliable?
Price is not a proxy for quality. If anything, expensive courses and advisory services include operators with no registration at all. Giving investment advice without the relevant registration can itself be a regulatory problem.