Independent platform · No upfront fees · We are not a recovery firm

Home › Sources & Methodology

Sources and methodology

Last updated 15 October 2026

Every Chain Pursuit article is built on verifiable sources and a consistent method. This page explains where our information comes from, how we check it, and how we handle figures, uncertainty, and corrections.

The sources we rely on

We prioritise primary sources over secondary commentary:

We do not treat anonymous social posts, forum rumours, or SEO blogs as sources for factual claims.

How we verify claims

We check material claims against at least one primary source, and we separate what is confirmed from what is still developing or uncertain. Where sources disagree on a figure, we give a range and say so. Where a claim is an interpretation rather than a fact, we mark it as such.

How we handle figures and statistics

We cite the publisher, the report, and the date for any statistic, and we note that reported losses are usually a floor rather than a total, because most fraud goes unreported. We do not publish invented precision or unsourced numbers.

A line we are careful about

We consistently distinguish blockchain visibility, what anyone can see on a public ledger, from enforcement authority, the power to freeze, seize, or compel disclosure, which rests with courts and law enforcement. Conflating the two is the root of most false hope in this field, and we do not do it.

Review cadence

Each page carries a review date. Time-sensitive pages are reviewed roughly quarterly; evergreen guides at least annually. The review date is the limit of our checking, so verify anything time-sensitive, especially reporting procedures and regulators, with the relevant authority directly.

Corrections

When we find or are told of an error, we correct the page and note the change and its date. Report an error to contact@chainpursuit.com.

How our articles are authored and reviewed is described in our Editorial policy.