Our editorial standards
Look beyond the number.
A useful review explains its evidence, its tradeoffs, and its limits. Here is how the CryptoRiver review system works.
A writer and a verifier
Every article has a staff author. Guides and reviews require verification by a different approved staff member. News can be published by one writer; an optional Verified by credit appears after a second staff member checks that revision. Changes clear the previous verification.
Transparent scoring
Each category has its own criteria, with scores from 1 to 10. The overall score is the weighted mean of the included criteria, rounded to one decimal. Higher scores mean a stronger assessment on that criterion.
A separate reader voice
Registered readers can comment and rate reviews. Only moderated, approved ratings contribute to the reader average. Reader ratings never change the editorial score.
Evidence with context
Reviews show their sources, verification date, advantages, limitations, and disclosures. The criteria and weights used are saved with the review, so changes to a category do not silently change an existing rating.
Blockchains
Version 2Network security, decentralization, performance and ecosystem maturity.
Each criterion is rated from 1 to 10 using documented observations. The editorial score is the sum of score × weight divided by the weights of the scored criteria, rounded to one decimal. All required criteria must be scored. Optional unscored criteria are excluded. Scores describe the tested product and date; reader ratings are calculated separately from approved comments. A second staff member verifies the evidence before publication.
| Criterion | What we evaluate | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Security & resilience | Review consensus risks, outages and security history. | 30 |
| Decentralization | Assess validator concentration and governance. | 25 |
| Performance & fees | Measure transaction costs and confirmation times with dated evidence. | 20 |
| Ecosystem | Assess tooling, applications and developer activity. | 15 |
| Developer experience | Evaluate documentation, integrations and network access. | 10 |
Weights are relative. A criterion with weight 2 contributes twice as much as one with weight 1.
Casinos
Version 2Licensing, player protection, payments and the experience of using a crypto casino.
Each criterion is rated from 1 to 10 using documented observations. The editorial score is the sum of score × weight divided by the weights of the scored criteria, rounded to one decimal. All required criteria must be scored. Optional unscored criteria are excluded. Scores describe the tested product and date; reader ratings are calculated separately from approved comments. A second staff member verifies the evidence before publication.
| Criterion | What we evaluate | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing & player safety | Verify the operating licence, responsible gambling tools, restrictions and fairness of terms. | 30 |
| Withdrawal time | Document a tested withdrawal: processing time, network, fees and verification delays. | 25 |
| Game selection & fairness | Assess providers, game availability and evidence supporting fairness claims. | 15 |
| Payments & fees | Compare supported currencies, limits and transparent deposit or withdrawal costs. | 15 |
| Customer support | Record support availability, response time and accuracy of answers. | 10 |
| Ease of use | Assess mobile experience, accessibility and clarity of navigation. | 5 |
Weights are relative. A criterion with weight 2 contributes twice as much as one with weight 1.
Coins & tokens
Version 2Utility, token distribution, security and transparency of crypto projects.
Each criterion is rated from 1 to 10 using documented observations. The editorial score is the sum of score × weight divided by the weights of the scored criteria, rounded to one decimal. All required criteria must be scored. Optional unscored criteria are excluded. Scores describe the tested product and date; reader ratings are calculated separately from approved comments. A second staff member verifies the evidence before publication.
| Criterion | What we evaluate | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Utility | Describe the demonstrated use case and product adoption. | 25 |
| Tokenomics | Review supply, allocations, unlocks and concentration. | 25 |
| Security | Check audits, permissions and exploit history. | 25 |
| Transparency | Assess governance, disclosures and verifiable information. | 15 |
| Liquidity & access | Assess venue quality and liquidity using dated observations. | 10 |
Weights are relative. A criterion with weight 2 contributes twice as much as one with weight 1.
Wallets
Version 2Security, custody, supported assets and practical wallet usability.
Each criterion is rated from 1 to 10 using documented observations. The editorial score is the sum of score × weight divided by the weights of the scored criteria, rounded to one decimal. All required criteria must be scored. Optional unscored criteria are excluded. Scores describe the tested product and date; reader ratings are calculated separately from approved comments. A second staff member verifies the evidence before publication.
| Criterion | What we evaluate | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Security | Review audits, signing, key storage and incident history. | 35 |
| Custody & recovery | Explain who controls keys and test backup and recovery. | 25 |
| Assets & networks | Check supported networks and asset compatibility. | 15 |
| Fees & transparency | Record network, exchange and service fees. | 10 |
| Ease of use | Test setup and daily transactions on supported devices. | 15 |
Weights are relative. A criterion with weight 2 contributes twice as much as one with weight 1.