How we fact-check an operator's claims
When we assess any operator, the first document we read is its own terms and conditions, not its marketing page. Promotional copy is written to persuade; terms are written to govern. The two frequently diverge on matters such as withdrawal limits, account closure and dispute resolution, and the terms are the version that counts.
From there we cross-reference. A claim about licensing should point to a register we can check independently. A claim about custody should be consistent with how deposits and withdrawals actually behave. Where an operator is wallet-only and self-custodial, such as Dexsport, the relevant questions shift towards smart-contract risk and settlement mechanics rather than a central balance sheet.
Dating matters as much as sourcing. Terms change quietly, and a review that does not record when a document was read can mislead within weeks. We keep notes with dates attached so that a later change is visible rather than hidden.
None of this is legal or investment advice, and our checks are not an endorsement. The aim is narrower: to separate what an operator has committed to in writing from what it has merely suggested in an advert, and to say plainly which is which.