Holder review policy

A review helps readers understand one person’s experience: what they tried to do, the conditions they encountered and the outcome. Preserving its origin matters, as does keeping an interpretation of the text separate from the author’s own rating.

Writing a useful review

Identify the service, action and approximate date: registration, account checks, trading, deposits, withdrawals or support. Separate what happened to you from assumptions about the cause. If an issue was resolved, include that alongside the original problem.

Both positive and negative experiences can be useful. Advertising, repeated messages, other people's personal information, threats and unrelated content do not help readers. Material that breaches these guidelines may be rejected or removed; a positive tone alone does not confer a publication advantage.

Author stars and text analysis

Stars attributed to an author represent a rating they selected when submitting the review. Where that choice was not recorded, we do not present it as an established user vote.

A text may carry a separate AI sentiment label. This describes wording, not verified events. Historical numbers of unknown origin are also distinguished from author ratings. Their possible use in the analytical score is explained in the TrustScore methodology.

Reviews from external publications

For text carried over from a public source, the original URL and date matter. They allow readers to compare publications and inspect context. A link establishes the availability of a source, not the author's identity, a completed transaction or the correctness of every claim.

A separate contact-check label, where shown, has a narrow meaning: contact with the author, not an audit of their account or verification of every event. A contact, source link or published comment alone must not be read as a verified transaction.

Publication and personal information

A review's text, chosen public name, date and available rating may appear on the site. Do not include phone numbers, home addresses, unnecessary private correspondence, identity documents, passwords, seed phrases or access keys. A contact for follow-up belongs outside the public review text.

Submission does not guarantee immediate publication: the site has spam protection and moderation tools. Publication itself does not mean Holder has confirmed every claim. The privacy policy describes data processing.

Correcting or challenging a review

Use the feedback form to report an error, duplicate, disclosure of personal information or incorrect source. Include the review URL, identify the passage and explain what needs clarification. Authors can report a changed outcome; service representatives can supply a response and supporting source.

Disagreement with criticism does not by itself prove it false. Neither a rating nor a review replaces the venue's support process or the applicable procedure for resolving a dispute.