Corrections policy
Anything that could change a reader's judgement or actions gets an entry here — factual errors, wrong descriptions of a mechanism, incorrect tool output, and any case where this site's description of its own conduct does not match what it actually does.
What does not get an entry: typography, punctuation, layout, and wording changes that leave the conclusion unchanged. Those happen constantly and logging them would bury the entries that matter.
Nothing is fixed silently. Where a passage is removed or substantially rewritten, this page states what it used to say and why that was wrong. That standard matters most on this particular site: we spend a lot of words telling readers to check their sources, so this site has to be a source that survives being checked afterwards.
This log covers the site as a whole. Corrections that are specific to one language version — wording and style fixes with no change to meaning — are recorded on that version's own corrections page.
The log
Most recent first. There are few entries so far, because the site is new and these all come from pre-launch checking.
2026-08-24 · Site-wide disclosure · an unverified fixed benefit figure
The problem: the draft said this site's code gave "up to 20% off trading fees" and also promised that it would never cost more. Public referral pages did not establish the rate for this specific code across regions and account types, and the current site-control record contains no verified referral details.
What was done: the fixed figure and the "never costs more" promise were removed. The copy now tells readers to check what the exchange form actually shows before submitting. This audit did not alter the code or referral-link destination; ownership of both remains a fact the site owner must verify before release.
2026-08-24 · File A-01 · source of experience and transaction splitting
The problem: one passage described a public-material review as though the desk had completed account-level P2P flows. The same piece advised spreading a large amount over time, which could be read as guidance for avoiding review.
What was done: the passage now identifies itself as a desk-based synthesis of public help material, not a first-hand account trade test. The transaction advice now explicitly rejects artificial splitting across time or accounts and directs readers to genuine purpose, published limits and the rules applying where they live.
2026-08-24 · Privacy page · static source cannot prove zero hosting-layer retention
The problem: the draft expanded "no analytics in the page code" into "the site holds no personal data". Static source cannot prove whether a host or content delivery network retains security and access logs, or that a referral dashboard exposes aggregate data only.
What was done: the page now separates what the code proves about tool input, cookies and analytics from connection logs and referral fields that still require deployment evidence. Code evidence is no longer used as a substitute for production configuration facts.
2026-08-23 · Tool T-01, transfer address checker · calculation error
The problem: the Base58 decoder produced one byte too many when the numeric portion of an address was zero. The case this affected in practice was addresses composed entirely of the leading Base58 character — the Solana system program address, for instance — which were reported as 33 bytes and therefore fell through to "unrecognised", when the correct result is 32 bytes and an identification as a SOL address.
What was done: the leading-zero handling in the decoder was corrected and a test case added for this situation. The pre-launch test set now covers legacy BTC, Bech32, Bech32m, mixed-case EIP-55, TRON and SOL, together with failing samples of each — twelve cases in total. This was found during pre-launch testing and no incorrect result was ever served to a reader.
2026-08-23 · Disclosure page · inaccurate description of our own conduct
The problem: the first draft of the disclosure page said that "apart from the sign-up guide, no page links to an exchange". That was not accurate — several articles link to an exchange's official fee page and referral rules page as sources a reader can check for themselves. Those carry no referral code and have nothing to do with promotion, but read literally, the original sentence was wrong.
What was done: the claim was restated in terms of the referral parameter ref=, and the page now distinguishes explicitly between links carrying a referral code and plain official reference links, explaining what the latter are for. Every sentence on a disclosure page has to survive literal checking; vagueness there counts as an error.
Reporting an error
If you find a factual error, a wrongly described mechanism, a tool returning the wrong result, or a gap between what this site does and what it says it does, please tell us.
Write to the address on the contact page. Including the page URL and the specific sentence you think is wrong makes it much faster; a public source supporting your reading is better still.
Anything that holds up gets fixed and gets an entry here. Anything that does not hold up gets a reply explaining why, rather than silence. One category we will not act on: requests to describe a specific platform or person as a fraudster. That is outside what this site does — we deal in shapes and structures, for the reasons set out in risk and disclaimer.