Exchange rules change, guides copy each other, and when one of them is wrong the copies are wrong in the same way. Writing something dependable in that environment is not a matter of style. It is a matter of going back and looking, sentence by sentence, at where the sentence came from.
Choosing what to write about
Subjects come from one place: somebody genuinely stuck on the way into an account, and what they would type into a search box. Why an address document was refused. A liveness check that keeps failing. A transliterated name that went in the wrong way round and can’t be edited. Those are real problems people are having, not topics thought up at a desk.
What we leave alone is equally clear. No price talk, no calls on direction, no what-to-buy, no futures tactics. Not out of caution — because none of it would help you with the thing this site is for. Ranking a dozen exchanges is off the table too: there is a referral relationship with exactly one of them, which makes that particular subject dishonest to attempt.
What counts as checked
Any statement about a platform rule, a line of interface text, a document requirement or a review time goes through three steps before it is published:
- Open the current official help or product page. Not memory, not a summary of it, and never a second-hand guide.
- Put a screenshot of that page in the sheet, so you can find the same line in the same place yourself. Insisting on a real screenshot is really insisting that every claim be pointable. If there is nothing to capture, that is usually the sentence telling you it doesn’t hold up.
- Where the official pages say nothing and the public record is silent, the sheet says so. Smoothing a gap over with a guess is the cheapest thing to write and the most dangerous to read, because someone will act on it.
Numbers get the most care of all. Review times, limits, how long a restriction lasts — either there is a source or the number isn’t used. And there is no “tested it, took X minutes” here, because you could not reproduce it.
Some numbers come in pairs on purpose. Binance shows an estimated 15 minutes on the review screen, and its help page says submitted documents are usually reviewed within 48 hours. Those are two different statements about two different things; we print both and explain the difference rather than averaging them into a third number that appears nowhere.
Rules for screenshots
Only pages anyone can reach without an account: sign-up entry points, help articles, fee pages. Never a balance, a position, an order, and never anyone’s document or verification screen. Where a form has to be shown, it is an empty one — redacting real data means one day missing a spot, and that is an incident rather than an illustration.
Every capture is dated to the month. After a redesign an old screenshot actively misleads, which is worse than no screenshot at all, so the date is there for you to judge whether it still stands rather than for decoration. If a capture no longer matches what you see, tell us.
What the AI tools do here, and what they don’t
Plainly: this site is written by the editorial desk, with AI tools used for research collation and first drafts. There is nothing to hide in that — hiding it would be the suspicious move. What matters is the boundary.
| Where AI is involved | Pulling scattered information from help centres, announcements and community threads into a list of things to verify; working out which questions a sheet has to answer; turning a rough draft into readable sentences. |
|---|---|
| Where it decides nothing | Every fact about a platform rule, interface wording, document requirement or time limit. Those are checked against the official page and shown with a screenshot. A model’s memory of exchange rules is typically months out of date; treat it as a source and you will eventually publish something that stopped being true in the spring. |
You will not see a claim here that every word was typed by a human, because that would be a promise nobody could keep. The promise that can be kept is different: somebody reads each sheet end to end before it goes up and answers for every factual statement in it. The by-line is on the page. If it is wrong, we are wrong, and the tool doesn’t get the blame.
Money and distance from it
There are Binance links on two of the sheets and a code on the front page, and a referral reward may follow from them; the arrangement is on the referral disclosure. That relationship affects exactly one thing — which platform gets written about. It does not affect how it gets written about.
In practice: the sharp edges get described, the common causes of rejection get listed, and waiting times get reported even when they read badly. Leaving out a known problem to keep a link looking attractive is the same as walking the reader into it. No sponsored posts, no paid placements, no paid inclusion, and no amount of money changes a sentence.
When something is wrong
Factual errors get fixed in the sheet and logged on corrections: the date, the page, what it used to say, what it says now. The old wording is written out, because “updated” alone leaves you unable to tell which version you read. Typography and layout are just fixed, with no entry.
Write to [email protected] with the address and the exact sentence. Corrections are taken seriously here, not least because the person writing this site reads the wrong page and misremembers a step as readily as anyone else.
Better to write “I couldn’t confirm this on Binance’s pages” than a complete-sounding sentence with nothing behind it. The first sends you to check. The second sends you to act.