Purpose

This Editorial Policy governs how The Blockchain History selects topics, evaluates sources, writes and revises content, and handles corrections. It exists to ensure that every page in the archive meets consistent standards of accuracy, transparency, and independence — the foundations of trustworthy historical scholarship on the open web.

Scope

The Site publishes educational and archival material about blockchain history, major protocols, influential people, regulatory milestones, and turning points in the broader cryptography and decentralized-systems field. Coverage prioritizes historical and explanatory value over novelty, hype, or market timing.

Source Tier System

All factual claims are evaluated against a three-tier source hierarchy. Editors must identify the highest available tier before stating a claim as established fact.

Tier 1 — Primary Evidence (Highest Authority)

Tier 1 sources are original, firsthand records. They take precedence over all other source types.

| Source Type | Examples | | --- | --- | | Original code repositories | Signed Git commits, release tags, protocol diffs with verifiable hashes (e.g., Bitcoin Core, go-ethereum) | | Protocol white papers & specifications | Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper, Ethereum Yellow Paper, BIPs, EIPs, RFCs | | Signed on-chain transactions | Genesis blocks, contract deployments, governance votes — verified by transaction ID and block height | | Contemporaneous primary documents | Original mailing-list posts (Cypherpunks, bitcoin-dev, ethereum-dev), founder blog posts with Wayback Machine archives, conference presentations with dated recordings | | Official project archives | Protocol foundation announcements, audited security reports published by the project itself |

Rule: A claim supported only by Tier 1 sources may be stated as fact. If Tier 1 evidence is unavailable, the claim must be qualified or omitted.

Tier 2 — Authoritative Secondary Evidence

Tier 2 sources interpret, analyze, or adjudicate primary evidence. They are used to supplement Tier 1 material or to cover events where primary records are incomplete.

| Source Type | Examples | | --- | --- | | Peer-reviewed academic publications | Journal articles, conference proceedings (IEEE, ACM), university theses with DOI | | Judicial and regulatory records | Court opinions, SEC enforcement actions, FCA/CFTC/BaFin rulings, parliamentary inquiry transcripts | | Formal institutional reports | Central bank research papers, NIST publications, ISO/IEC standards documents | | Established academic histories | Scholarly monographs and edited volumes with full bibliographies and primary-source citations |

Rule: Tier 2 sources may support narrative framing and contextual analysis but cannot override contradictory Tier 1 evidence. When Tier 2 sources conflict with each other, the page must note the disagreement.

Tier 3 — Reputable Media & Commentary (Lowest Authority)

Tier 3 sources provide useful context, timelines, and public-record summaries but are never sufficient on their own to establish contested facts.

| Source Type | Examples | | --- | --- | | Established financial & technology journalism | CoinDesk, The Block, Wired, Ars Technica, Financial Times, Bloomberg — articles with named bylines and cited sources | | Documented industry timelines | Well-maintained public wikis with citation requirements, conference archive pages | | Expert commentary | Opinion pieces, podcasts, and interviews — clearly labeled as perspective, not fact |

Rule: Tier 3 sources may be cited for background color, public perception, or widely reported events that are corroborated by Tier 1 or Tier 2 evidence. A claim supported solely by Tier 3 sources must be explicitly qualified (e.g., "According to reporting at the time…") or flagged as unverified.

Source Conflicts & Uncertainty

When available evidence is insufficient or contradictory:

• The page states the uncertainty explicitly rather than forcing consensus.
• Competing accounts are presented side by side with their respective source tiers noted.
• Editors do not resolve disputes by editorial fiat; they document the state of evidence and update when new primary material emerges.

Editorial Standards

When preparing or revising a page, content must be:

• Historically structured — Events placed in chronological and causal context.
• Accessible — Understandable to non-specialists without oversimplifying technical detail.
• Terminology-consistent — Protocol names, technical terms, and date formats used uniformly across the archive.
• Properly scoped — Interpretation and analysis clearly distinguished from documented fact.
• Fully sourced — Key claims traceable to Tier 1 or Tier 2 references; Tier 3 usage explicitly qualified.

Pages may include editorial interpretation, but speculation must never be presented as settled fact.

Independence

The Blockchain History Editorial Board operates under strict independence rules:

• No paid promotion — We do not accept payment for articles, rankings, protocol reviews, or favorable coverage of any project, token, or company.
• No token launch participation — We do not promote, advise on, or participate in initial coin offerings, token generation events, airdrops, or similar fundraising activities.
• No sponsored content — Advertising displayed on the Site (including Google AdSense) is clearly separated from editorial content. Ad placement does not influence topic selection, source evaluation, or page rankings.
• No undisclosed affiliations — Contributors with material conflicts of interest on a given topic recuse themselves from editing that topic.

Our sole editorial objective is the accurate, accessible documentation of blockchain history.

Updates & Corrections

Content maintenance follows a transparent, documented process:

Routine Updates

Pages are reviewed on a rolling basis. Minor wording improvements, typographical fixes, and link updates may be made without a separate public announcement.

Substantive Revisions

When a material error is corrected, new primary sources are incorporated, or later events change the framing of a topic:

1. The page content is updated with the corrected information and revised source citations.
2. The updated_at date in the page metadata is changed to reflect the revision date.
3. For significant factual corrections, an internal revision log entry is created noting the nature of the change, the prior text, and the supporting evidence.

Correction Requests from Readers

Readers may submit factual corrections via editor@theblockchainhistory.com with the subject line "Correction Request." See our Contact page for submission requirements.

Our review process:

1. Acknowledgment — Receipt confirmed within 24–48 hours.
2. Source verification — Proposed corrections are evaluated against the tier system above.
3. Decision — Accepted corrections are implemented promptly; rejected requests receive a brief explanation citing the evidentiary basis.
4. Publication — Accepted changes appear on the live page with an updated date.

We prioritize corrections involving factual errors (dates, names, transaction details, misquotes) over stylistic preferences.

Content We Do Not Publish

To protect reader trust, the following content types are excluded:

• Price predictions, trading signals, or investment recommendations
• Undisclosed sponsored reviews or paid rankings
• Token launch announcements or promotional material for fundraising events
• Content that cannot be supported by at least Tier 3 sources with a path to Tier 1/2 verification

Contact

Questions about this policy, source disputes, or correction status:

Email: editor@theblockchainhistory.com

Related pages: About · Contact · Privacy Policy