Holder editorial policy

Holder brings together cryptocurrency and exchange data, practical articles and tools for market participants. This policy explains what supports a conclusion in our content and how readers can inspect a source or report an error.

A public record of our work

Our community has a public archive dating to December 2017, when the channel was called Cryptosliva. It contains market discussions, guides and questions to readers. Holder now combines that community history with a market database and practical tools.

Named authors stand behind editorial articles. Work by founder Vladislav Chalin is collected in his Russian-language author archive. His subjects include choosing crypto exchanges and trading tools, including an article on exchanges for algorithmic trading published on vc.ru.

Different content uses different evidence

Market tables display data and calculated metrics. They help readers compare assets or venues, but do not replace an exchange's own terms or guarantee execution at a displayed price. Each calculated metric should be read with its methodology.

Reviews and guides depend on service documentation, terms and a defined use case. A first-hand account describes a particular account, location, time and action. It can be useful without representing every user's experience.

Community polls and messages reveal questions and difficulties within the audience. They are a separate type of source: responses need to be read in the context of the question, rather than treated as a test of an exchange's reliability.

What supports a claim

An exchange's terms are the primary source for its fees, country restrictions and account rules. Regulatory status requires the relevant regulator's documents or register. A company registration, an app listing and an exchange's blog post establish different things; none alone establishes protection for customer funds.

A cited source needs to support the particular conclusion. When the evidence is a project's own statement or a personal observation, that distinction should remain visible. Unexplained numbers, advertised returns and unverified accusations do not provide a sufficient basis for a factual conclusion.

A practical assessment connects an action, its conditions and its outcome. An interface screenshot establishes what the interface showed; a successful transfer establishes one transaction. Calling an article a test requires described steps and a clear scope.

Authorship and dates

An author credit helps readers find that person's other work and understand its subject matter. A separate review credit is meaningful only when the named person actually carried out that review. It should not be generated as a substitute for authorship.

A publication date identifies when an article appeared. A market-data refresh, a text edit and a check of an individual claim are different events. When reading an older review, pay particular attention to when its fees, product availability and first-hand observations applied. An automatically refreshed price does not update every paragraph on a page.

Community feedback and editorial topics

Readers' interests leave a visible record. On 31 October 2022, our Russian-language channel asked whether readers wanted a guide to early-stage projects. On 4 November, it shared the resulting topic in an article on Holder. This sequence shows the subjects readers were asked about and the material subsequently published.

Archived polls retain their own context: who could see the question, which answers were offered and when it was posted. These Telegram polls are not inputs to the exchange TrustScore.

Affiliate links and corrections

Holder receives compensation through affiliate links. Readers should be able to distinguish a partner registration link from a source used to support a claim. The affiliate disclosure explains monetization; metric methodologies explain numerical ratings. An affiliate relationship alone says nothing about a platform's quality or safety.

To report an error, send the page URL through our feedback form. Identify the passage and, where possible, include a primary source with the current terms. For a first-hand account, the date and sequence of events are useful. Do not send passwords, seed phrases, API keys or complete account documents.

The purpose of our content is to give readers grounds for their own decisions. Personal circumstances, access to a service and the risk of losing funds still require separate consideration.