Methodology
Crypto market analysis operates in an environment where reliable data is scarce, incentives are misaligned, and the cost of being wrong can be severe. Our methodology exists to impose structure on that environment. Every investigation, dossier, and report we publish follows the framework described below. We document it here so readers can evaluate our process, not just our conclusions.
Investigation Structure
Our investigations follow a consistent architecture:
- Incident identification -- we identify the event, anomaly, or behavioral pattern that triggers the investigation
- Timeline construction -- we assemble a chronological record using publicly available data, user reports, regulatory filings, and on-chain evidence where applicable
- Pattern matching -- we compare the current incident against known failure patterns from previous exchange crises, protocol failures, or market disruptions
- Context framing -- we place the incident within its broader market and regulatory environment
- Risk assessment -- we evaluate the practical implications for users holding assets on the affected platform or protocol
- Limitation disclosure -- we state explicitly what we do not know and where our analysis relies on inference rather than confirmed facts
Evidence Types
We weight evidence according to its verifiability and independence:
- Primary evidence includes on-chain data, regulatory filings, court documents, and platform-published communications
- Secondary evidence includes credible media reports, documented user complaints, and industry analyst commentary
- Contextual evidence includes market data, historical precedent, and observable behavioral patterns
We avoid relying on anonymous tips, unverified screenshots, or single-source claims unless we can corroborate them independently. When we reference statistics or quantitative data, we cite the source institution or report.
Commentary vs. Reporting
We draw a clear distinction between reporting and commentary:
- Reporting presents facts, timelines, and documented evidence with minimal editorial framing
- Commentary presents our interpretation, assessment, or opinion about what the evidence means
When a piece includes both, we signal the shift explicitly. Op-ed pieces are labeled as such.
Speculative Asset Coverage
Crypto assets are inherently speculative. Our dossiers acknowledge this directly:
- We do not make price predictions
- We do not issue buy, sell, or hold recommendations
- We assess protocol design, governance structures, token economics, and competitive positioning
- We identify risk concentrations and potential failure modes
- We state clearly when a project is early-stage, unproven, or operating in a regulatory gray area
Information Security and Standards Alignment
Our approach to evidence handling and data integrity draws on established information security frameworks. Where applicable, we reference standards published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for guidance on data integrity, evidence handling, and structured risk assessment methodologies. These frameworks inform how we catalog evidence, maintain chain of custody for documented incidents, and structure our risk evaluation criteria.
Editorial Review
Every published piece goes through editorial review before publication:
- Factual claims are checked against primary sources
- Timelines are verified for accuracy and completeness
- Speculative language is flagged and either justified or removed
- Outbound references are evaluated for authority and relevance
- The piece is reviewed for compliance with our editorial policy
Limitations
No methodology eliminates uncertainty. Ours reduces it by imposing structure, requiring evidence, and disclosing gaps. We encourage readers to verify our claims independently, cross-reference our timelines with other sources, and treat our commentary as one input among many in their own research process.