Bitcoin.now Editorial Policy

Accuracy comes before a neat story

A clear story is useful only when its facts hold up. Bitcoin.now separates facts that follow from protocol rules from observations that depend on a company, product, venue, date, or jurisdiction. When reliable sources disagree, the uncertainty stays visible.

A market event and a price move happening on the same day do not prove that one caused the other. Reports may describe timing and attributed opinions, but they do not turn correlation into certainty.

• State what was measured, where, and when.
• Name the actor responsible for an action.
• Do not hide a meaningful limitation to make a sentence simpler.

Source hierarchy

Primary sources come first when they can prove the claim. Examples include Bitcoin repositories and BIPs, regulator notices, court documents, company filings, exchange status pages, official datasets, and direct public statements from the responsible party.

Independent reporting can add context and help identify what needs checking. A syndicated copy, press-release rewrite, or article that cites the same unnamed source does not count as independent confirmation. New market reports require at least two approved independent source domains.

Bitcoin protocol review

Technical review asks who performs each job and which layer the claim describes. Wallets create and sign transactions. Nodes validate rules. Miners propose transaction ordering through proof of work. Exchanges run markets. Lightning adds a different payment and liquidity model above the base layer.

Review checks consensus rules, wallet behavior, relay policy, product defaults, and market behavior separately. A block explorer can display data, but it does not define Bitcoin’s validity rules. Readers can see the full protocol review process.

Evergreen guide workflow

A guide begins with one reader question and a clear search intent. The outline must cover the useful answer, trade-offs, failure paths, and next action without repeating the same keyword in every heading. Plain language is preferred, but simple wording cannot reverse the technical meaning.

Before publication, the page is checked for one clear H1, logical headings, readable paragraphs, useful examples, working internal links, source needs, and date-sensitive claims. Review dates represent meaningful content work, not a CSS change.

• The opening should answer why the subject matters.
• The body should explain how to verify important claims.
• The final section should lead naturally to the next useful concept.

Market report workflow

The market desk selects an event because it changes a verifiable fact or gives Bitcoin readers useful context. A dramatic prediction by itself is not enough. The report identifies the date, actors, sources, measured facts, and the limits of any claimed market cause.

Every report uses fresh wording and a plain-English structure. It includes key points, section navigation, contextual links to durable guides or tools, a checked-source record, and one read-next report. Historical prices stay tied to their date instead of appearing as current data.

Automation and AI-assisted work

Automated systems may gather candidate headlines, detect duplicates, organize source records, check required fields, or help prepare a draft. Third-party feed text is not automatically published as a Bitcoin.now report.

A report still has to pass source-domain, attribution, structure, originality, link, and editorial checks. Automation must not invent a source, quote, credential, market figure, or claim of causation. If a required fact cannot be verified, the draft should stop rather than fill the gap with confident language.

Programmatic content standard

Price, converter, and glossary pages use shared layouts because consistency helps people compare information. The indexed content must still answer a distinct question. Swapping one ticker or currency code inside repeated boilerplate is not enough.

An asset page should explain its network, issuance, validation, control, main use, markets, and risks. A converter should explain the direction of the calculation, units, examples, rate source, and limitations. A glossary page should include a definition, mechanism, example, common mistake, and related concepts.

Headlines, metadata, and search presentation

The visible headline should describe the page honestly. Search titles and descriptions may be shorter, but they must keep the central verified claim. Keywords are not repeated merely to reach a density target, and a title should not promise a fact the page does not establish.

Structured data must describe visible page content. Dates, authors, reviewers, datasets, FAQs, and breadcrumbs are added only when the page supports them. Correct markup can help a search engine understand a page, but it is not used to disguise thin content.

Independence and conflicts

A commercial relationship cannot determine a protocol conclusion, hide a material risk, or turn an advertisement into independent reporting. Issuers, exchanges, advertisers, and article subjects receive the same evidence standard as any reader.

Bitcoin.now does not publish personalized buy, sell, or hold instructions. Tools remain read-only and educational. The site’s limits are described in the risk disclaimer and its price construction is documented in the data methodology.

Corrections, clarifications, and updates

A correction fixes a factual error that existed at publication. A clarification improves wording that was technically true but easy to misunderstand. An update reflects later evidence, software, regulation, product terms, or market facts.

Material changes stay on the durable URL and update the review record. Ordinary spelling and presentation edits do not claim a fresh review. The complete process and reader checklist are available on the corrections page.