Editorial policy

1. Editorial independence

1.1. Market Filter is an independent editorial platform. All assessments, reputation statuses, ratings and conclusions are formed by the Editorial Team on its own, under the published Methodology.

1.2. Payment for a review, for a partner placement in a top or for a queue-jump review does not and cannot influence:

• the assignment, change or withdrawal of a reputation status;
• the assignment of the "Market Filter Verified" badge;
• the score and rating of an object;
• the decision to publish a breakdown in the Market Scam section;
• the Editorial Team's conclusions in any material.

1.3. The final decision on any material always rests with the Editorial Team. Neither a partner nor a channel owner has any right of approval, sign-off or advance review of editorial conclusions.

1.4. Declining a partnership or any other form of cooperation is not a ground for a worse assessment, and agreeing to them is not a ground for a better one. Commercial negotiations and editorial assessment are conducted independently of each other.

1.5. We do not delete or soften published materials for a fee. Offers of this kind are rejected, and where there are systematic attempts at pressure we may inform our audience about them.

2. Separation of editorial and commercial

2.1. Any placement on a commercial basis is clearly identified as a partner placement, either within the material or at the place where it appears.

2.2. Partner placements are visually and structurally separated from editorial materials and are not presented in the form of an editorial review, an assessment or a selection.

2.3. The "Market Filter Verified" badge, reputation statuses, scores and places in tops obtained through editorial assessment are not commercial products and are not sold in any form.

2.4. The check for the badge is a paid service, but what is paid for is the work of the check, not the badge. The badge is assigned only where an object meets the criteria of the Methodology. A negative outcome is possible; where we decline, we report the outcome, and the fee for a check already carried out is not refunded: the work has been done either way.

2.5. A fee for a queue-jump review covers only faster consideration of the application and does not affect the outcome of the review. A negative outcome remains possible and does not give any right to have the conclusion revised.

2.6. Partner placement in a top exists separately from places obtained through editorial assessment and always carries the "Market Filter Partner" label. The label is visible in the same place as the object itself. The object's reputation status stays visible when it takes a partner placement and does not depend on payment. Partner placement is available only to objects that do not hold the "Scam" status; objects with any other status, including "High risk", may take it, and their status stays visible alongside the label.

2.7. Referral and affiliate links, where used, are marked as such.

2.8. The full list of paid services, and of what is not for sale under any conditions, is in the Paid Services Terms.

3. Conflict of interest

3.1. Members of the Editorial Team must disclose any personal or financial connection with an object of analysis: participation in the project, receipt of remuneration from it, friendship or family ties with its owners, or a significant position in related assets.

3.2. Where such a connection exists, the member is removed from work on the material and another person prepares it.

3.3. Market Filter's own products and projects, as well as projects connected with members of the Market Filter team, are identified as connected whenever they are mentioned. We do not assess them on a par with other objects and do not assign reputation statuses to them.

3.4. Gifts, access to paid products and other material offers from objects of analysis are not accepted, except where access is necessary to prepare a breakdown; such access is disclosed in the material.

4. Who prepares materials

4.1. Materials are prepared by the Market Filter Editorial Team: analysts and editors specialising in the cryptocurrency ecosystem and the Telegram market.

4.2. Roles inside the Editorial Team are separated: one member prepares a material, another checks the quality of the analysis and clears it for publication.

4.3. Assignment and withdrawal of reputation statuses and of the badge, as well as moving an object to the Market Scam section, are performed only by the Editorial Team. A history of changes is kept for every material.

4.4. There are no automated decisions about statuses and scores. Automation only updates factual data from Telegram.

5. Standards of work with facts

5.1. Every substantive conclusion must rest on a verifiable source. In breakdowns of fraudulent schemes an evidence base is mandatory: screenshots, links to sources, a description of the mechanics of the scheme.

5.2. Screenshots are published with a caption explaining what they show and where they come from. We do not edit images in a way that changes their meaning.

5.3. We separate facts from assessments. A fact is something that can be checked against a source. An assessment is a conclusion of the Editorial Team, and it is phrased as a conclusion of the Editorial Team, not as objective reality.

5.4. Statements about risk and fraud are built from observable indicators: what exactly we saw, where and when. We do not attribute the commission of crimes to particular persons and do not substitute ourselves for law enforcement bodies and courts.

5.5. Where a position of the object's owner has been received and is relevant to the subject of the breakdown, we take it into account and, where necessary, quote it in the material.

5.6. Data older than two years is accompanied by a note about limited currency.

5.7. A material without sufficient confirmation is not published. Doubt is resolved in favour of restraint: where the data supports only a suspicion, the "under review" status is used rather than "scam". Such objects are shown in the Market Scam section because the signs of a future fraudulent scheme are often visible in advance and we warn the audience straight away. The "under review" status means that an object has raised questions and the review is still in progress; it is not a conclusion of fraud.

6. Corrections and updates

6.1. We correct mistakes. If published information turns out to be inaccurate, the material is corrected and, where the meaning changes substantially, accompanied by a correction note.

6.2. The procedure for submitting and handling requests for correction and status review is set out in the Complaints and Appeals Policy. You can contact the Editorial Team about any object through the official channels of communication; on cards in the Market Scam section and on cards of objects awaiting analysis, a "Report an error" link is additionally displayed for this purpose.

6.3. We do not delete materials retroactively because they are inconvenient for the object of the analysis. A material may be corrected, supplemented, updated or, where it is confirmed to be unfounded, withdrawn from publication.

6.4. Cards of removed and unavailable objects are kept with a note for the sake of transparency and record-keeping.

7. Ethical limits

7.1. We do not publish personal data unrelated to the subject of the analysis: home addresses, personal phone numbers, identity document and payment data, or details of private life.

7.2. We do not publish materials that incite hatred and do not resort to personal attacks instead of examining practices.

7.3. We do not use the platform to settle scores, for unfair competition or to pressure market participants.

7.4. We do not give partner placements to financial pyramids, fake platforms, services and channels promising guaranteed returns, or other objects with clear signs of fraud or misleading promises. Objects holding the "Scam" status are not given a partner placement at all.

8. Relations with the audience

8.1. We explain what every conclusion is based on and publish the methodology in full.

8.2. We do not promise our audience profitability, safety or protection of funds. Our task is to provide a structured picture so that decisions are taken knowingly.

8.3. We accept reports from users about fraudulent schemes but verify them ourselves. A user report is not a ground for publication without verification.

9. Responsibility for compliance

9.1. The Editorial Team is responsible for compliance with this policy. Breaching the principles of independence and of work with facts is a ground for removing a member of staff from work on materials.

9.2. Breaches of editorial standards can be reported through the official channel of communication, @MarketFilterSupportBot.

9.3. The policy is reviewed as the project develops; the current version is published on the site with an update date.