Our mission
peatpost exists to explain the crypto industry to people who want to understand it without being sold to. Our readers include professional traders and protocol engineers, but also curious generalists who have heard enough hype and want something closer to plain English. We try to write for all of them — precise enough to respect the technical reader, clear enough to respect the newcomer.
These guidelines describe how we work. They are not aspirational. If an editor discovers we have failed to follow them, we will correct the piece and, where it matters, explain what went wrong. Reader trust is built article by article and lost the same way; we would rather move slower than cut a corner we cannot defend.
Newsroom independence
peatpost is editorially independent. The newsroom decides what to cover, how to cover it, and when to publish. No advertiser, sponsor, investor, source, or commercial partner has any veto over our coverage, any pre-publication review of articles, or any influence over the editorial calendar. The wall between editorial and commercial is enforced by an explicit policy, by the structure of who reports to whom inside the organisation, and by the simple fact that none of our editors’ compensation is tied to revenue from any subject they cover.
peatpost’s ownership and any material changes to it are disclosed on the Masthead page. We hold no treasury positions in any crypto asset other than dollar-pegged stablecoins used to settle invoices to international contractors.
Sourcing
We prefer primary sources to secondary ones. Where possible an article cites the original filing, the on-chain transaction, the protocol governance proposal, the audited statement, or the official announcement rather than another outlet’s summary of it. When we do rely on other publications we link to them on first mention.
Anonymous sources are used sparingly and only where information is in the public interest and cannot reasonably be obtained on the record. Before publishing material drawn from an anonymous source, an editor must know the identity of the source, must be satisfied that the reporter understands why anonymity is being granted, and must record the basis for that decision internally so that it is auditable later. We describe an anonymous source as specifically as we can without identifying them — for example “a person directly involved in the negotiations”.
Verification
A claim that can be checked is checked. Market-moving, reputational, or legal claims receive a second pair of eyes before publication. The default standard for breaking news is the two-source rule: we do not publish a contested or material assertion based on a single anonymous source unless either (a) we have additional documentary evidence we can describe to readers, or (b) the editor in chief signs off in writing on a single-source publication and we say so in the article.
For on-chain claims we cite the transaction hash, the address, or the block height so readers can independently verify. For quoted statements we keep the original source — an email, a recording, a transcript, a screen capture — on file in case of dispute. If we cannot verify a claim to our satisfaction but it is still newsworthy, we say so in the article: “peatpost has not independently verified X.”
Attribution
When another publication broke a story, we credit them by name on first mention and link to the piece. Aggregated stories on peatpost carry an “Aggregated” byline, a clear source tag, and a link straight back to the original article; the reader’s next click goes to the publication that did the reporting, not deeper into our own site. This is a deliberate choice. We are happy to send traffic away.
We do not present other outlets’ scoops as our own. An aggregated rewrite always names and links the publication whose reporting it is based on. If our own reporter advances a story past the point another outlet took it, we say what the other outlet reported and what we have added.
Corrections and revision history
We correct errors promptly, visibly, and on the record. A correction note appears at the bottom of the affected article stating what was wrong, what it has been changed to, and when the change was made. Material changes — a wrong number, a wrong name, a mischaracterised quote — are always disclosed. Typography and minor copy fixes are made silently.
We do not currently keep a public revision history of edits. The correction note on the article is the record of what changed and when; if you have a legitimate question that the note does not answer, write to us and we will tell you what we know.
Readers who spot a problem should email corrections@peatpost.com. We aim to respond within one working day.
Use of AI in the newsroom
We use AI tools in our workflow, and we think you should know exactly where. Specifically:
- Aggregation pipeline.peatpost operates an automated RSS pipeline that ingests stories from established publications — including CoinDesk, Decrypt, Cointelegraph, The Block, Bitcoin Magazine, CryptoSlate, Bitcoinist, NewsBTC, and others configured by the desk — rewrites each one in house style using Google Gemini, downloads the source image, and publishes the result automatically. Articles produced this way are tagged Aggregated in the byline and the source publication is credited and linked. There is no human review before an aggregated item goes live: the rewrite is instructed never to add facts, figures, or quotes that are not in the source, and editors review the published list afterwards, correcting or removing anything that falls short.
- Summarisation support. Reporters may use AI to draft a first-pass summary of a long filing, transcript, or research paper, which is then rewritten by a human before it appears in an article.
- Language tightening. Editors may use AI to suggest cuts or alternative phrasings during copy-editing, in the same way a human copy editor would.
- Headline and dek drafting for aggregated items, produced by the same automated rewrite and reviewed after publication.
Aggregated stories are the one place where machine-rewritten text is published without prior human review, and they are always labelled as such. Everything else — original reporting, opinion, corrections — has a named human responsible for it, and a human editor answers for every correction we make, including corrections to aggregated items. AI is not cited as a source, because it is not one.
Conflicts of interest
Writers and editors may hold cryptocurrencies, but the following rules apply without exception:
- Writers must disclose, inside the article, any personal position with a value greater than US$1,000 (or local-currency equivalent) in an asset they are writing about.
- Writers must not trade an asset in the 24 hours before or after publication of any article in which the asset features.
- Writers must not accept tokens, NFTs, airdrops, gifts, or speaking fees from projects, exchanges, protocols, or DAOs they cover.
- Travel and lodging to cover an event are accepted only where the funder is named and the relationship disclosed in the article.
- Editors must approve any exception in writing, and the exception must be flagged in the article.
Separation of news and opinion
News articles describe events. Opinion articles argue for a view. They are not the same thing and we do not mix them. Opinion pieces are labelled “Opinion” and carry the author’s name. A news reporter does not use the news byline to push a view on the asset, protocol, or company they are covering, and an opinion writer does not present an argument as if it were a neutral news report.
Advertising and sponsored content
Editorial and commercial are separated by a clear internal wall. Advertisers do not see articles before publication, do not direct or suggest topics, and do not influence what runs. Where peatpost accepts advertising or sponsored content, the advertorial is labelled prominently and unambiguously — never disguised as a news article, never given a reporter’s byline. Sponsored items appear in their own visual treatment, are tagged Sponsored on every list and in the article header, and disclose the sponsor in the first paragraph.
We retain final editorial control over the wording of any sponsored item. We do not run sponsored content from projects we are concurrently investigating, and we do not run sponsored content for products that we would refuse to cover for other reasons (for example projects we have reason to believe are fraudulent).
Comments and community moderation
Where we open comments or community spaces, we moderate them. We remove spam, threats, harassment, doxing, identifiable personal data, and content that violates the law where the speaker is, where the target is, or where we operate. We aim to be light-touch with disagreement, including forceful disagreement with our own coverage, and heavy-handed with abuse.
Repeat violations result in suspension. Decisions are made by humans, not automated keyword filters alone, and a removed comment can be appealed by writing to editorial@peatpost.com.
Tipsters and source protection
We will not knowingly identify a confidential source. Where you contact us with information about wrongdoing — fraud, market manipulation, regulatory capture, abuse of users — we will take reasonable steps proportionate to the sensitivity of the material to protect your identity, including stripping email metadata, using local-only notes, and communicating over an encrypted channel where you ask us to.
- Email: tips@peatpost.com. PGP key available on request by email.
- Signal: handle @peatpost. Please confirm the safety number with us before sending sensitive material.
- Use the subject line “confidential” and do not include identifying information you do not need to.
We do not promise legal protection in jurisdictions whose laws compel disclosure, and we will tell you so before you commit. We will not pay sources for information.
Reader contact
Tips, criticism, and story ideas are all welcome. For general editorial enquiries, write to editorial@peatpost.com. For corrections, corrections@peatpost.com. For confidential tips, tips@peatpost.com.
For the legal framework around these guidelines, see our Terms of Use and Editorial Disclaimer.
— The Editor-in-Chief, peatpost