Editorial Policy

Bitcoin custody is unforgiving. A misread sentence about seed phrases, recovery, or wallet choice can cost a reader real money, sometimes permanently. Bitcoin Plaster writes for people who are making decisions in that environment, and that obligation sets the standards on this page.

This Editorial Policy is a public statement of how the publication chooses topics, handles sources and verification, processes corrections, reviews existing content over time, and separates editorial judgment from any future monetization.

Scope

Bitcoin Plaster is a Bitcoin-only publication with a custody-first focus. The work concentrates on questions that matter when someone is trying to understand control rather than just exposure: the difference between owning access and holding keys, the practical meaning of self-custody, wallet behavior, backup and recovery thinking, and the way acquisition decisions feed into custody decisions.

Adjacent technical and product-oriented topics are covered when they help a reader make a custody decision more carefully. Topics outside this focus are declined, regardless of traffic potential or commercial opportunity.

How topics enter the publication

A topic earns coverage when it meets at least one of these standards and survives a reasonableness check on the others:

Resolvable confusion. The topic addresses a real point of decision or misunderstanding for readers acting on Bitcoin, not a manufactured question.
Custody relevance. The topic clarifies control, responsibility, wallet use, backup discipline, or the consequences of a custody choice.
Decision separation. The topic helps a reader untangle ideas that are often collapsed together, exchange account versus wallet, seed phrase versus private key, convenience versus control, tool choice versus custody model.
Topic fit. The topic belongs inside the publication's stated focus rather than expanding it into unrelated coverage.
Coverable with restraint. The topic can be handled without leaning on urgency, hype, fear, or unsupported claims.

Monetization potential is not on this list and is not a substitute for any item on it.

Sources and verification

When a claim depends on a specific source, Bitcoin Plaster works from primary documentation where it exists, including protocol specifications, manufacturer documentation, original announcements, and directly relevant technical references, rather than secondhand summaries. Adding citations does not improve a page if the citations do not improve the accuracy of the claim being made.

Three kinds of statement are treated differently on this publication:

Factual statements are claims that should be supportable from a source or from common technical understanding. These are written to be checkable.
Interpretation explains why a distinction matters or how a concept fits into a larger picture. Interpretation is labeled as reasoning, not as fact.
Recommendation-sensitive judgment is any statement that could push a reader toward a specific tool, action, or product. These claims carry the highest standard and the most caution.

Bitcoin Plaster does not claim that every page is free of error. The commitment is to make consequential claims deliberately, to avoid false certainty, and to correct material problems when they are found or reported.

Corrections

Factual corrections are welcome and treated as part of how this publication stays honest.

If a reader believes a page contains an error, an unclear statement, a missing qualifier, or materially incomplete context, the Contact / Corrections page is the right route. A correction message is most useful when it includes:

the page URL or section in question;
the specific statement being challenged;
why the reader believes it is wrong, incomplete, or misleading;
and any directly relevant source the reader wants considered.

Corrections are reviewed on their merits. When a report is warranted, the publication revises, clarifies, or annotates the page. Not every message receives an individual reply, but factual reports are read and weighed, they form part of the publication's accountability surface, not a customer-service queue.

Updates and review

Not every page needs the same maintenance rhythm. Some educational content is genuinely evergreen and should remain stable. Other pages, especially anything that touches a tool, a policy, or a recommendation-sensitive area, need to be reviewed more often.

Content is reviewed when any of the following apply:

a credible correction is submitted;
a meaningful change in the underlying topic warrants a refresh;
terminology or guidance has become less clear over time;
a tool, policy, or recommendation-sensitive area has changed materially;
or routine editorial review identifies a sharper way to make the same point.

No fixed refresh interval is promised across the site. Review effort is concentrated where reader consequence is highest.

Recommendation-sensitive content

Anything that could move a reader toward a specific tool, vendor, or course of action is treated as recommendation-sensitive. Reviews and Comparisons, when those formats are introduced later, fall fully under this category.

For recommendation-sensitive content, the publication holds itself to specific limits:

no casual "best" or "top" claims without a defensible basis for the claim;
no hidden commercial routing or stealth recommendations;
no presenting partner availability as evidence of editorial merit;
no implying that a tool is suitable for every reader;
and no using affiliate potential as a substitute for actual reasoning.

These limits exist because a careless recommendation in this area has real consequences for the reader. They apply now and tighten further if and when product coverage is formally activated.

Editorial judgment and monetization

Bitcoin Plaster may, over time, use affiliate links in some parts of the site. That commercial possibility does not determine what gets published, what gets recommended, or how strongly anything is endorsed.

The order of operations on this publication is fixed:

Editorial reasoning first. A topic or recommendation has to stand up on its own merits before any commercial question is considered.
Monetization second. If a covered topic also happens to support a commercial relationship, that relationship is disclosed but does not steer the reasoning.
Disclosure always. Where monetized links are present, they are disclosed in line with the Affiliate Disclosure page.

An available affiliate relationship does not make a product worth covering. The absence of one does not make a tool irrelevant. The two questions, is this worth telling readers about and is there a commission, are answered separately.

Affiliate Disclosure: how Bitcoin Plaster handles commercial transparency.
Contact / Corrections: how readers can report factual issues or raise editorial concerns.