Corrections

We get things wrong. When we do, we fix them and log the notable ones here — what changed, why, and when — rather than quietly editing them away as if nothing happened. The three below are small corrections we caught during our pre-launch review (2026-07-03); none of them is a disaster. Any corrections after we go live will land here the same way. If you spot something off, tell us on the contact page.

2026-07-03 · An on-chain fee claim was too absolute

What changed: In pre-launch review we found a draft on choosing a withdrawal network that described one network's fee as close to "free." That was overstated. We changed it to: "on-chain fees are very low, but not zero, and they move with network conditions — the amount that counts is whatever your wallet or Binance's withdrawal page shows at the time."

Why: On-chain fees change. Writing it too absolutely can leave someone thinking it's always free, and then a congested network hands them a real charge they weren't expecting. A qualitative statement plus "per the page shown" is more reliable than a claim that goes stale.

2026-07-03 · A freeze-duration claim was pinned to a fixed number

What changed: In pre-launch review we found a spot where a draft gave the length of an account freeze as a single fixed figure, which read like a guarantee. We changed it to a range and made it explicit: "whether an account is frozen and for how long is a range decided by banks and the authorities; this site can't estimate or promise it."

Why: Freeze duration varies with the case, the bank, and the jurisdiction — there is no single universal number. Pinning one down is both inaccurate and sets people up with unrealistic expectations. Saying honestly "who decides, and a rough range" is the truer version.

2026-07-03 · Added a note that spreading trades is not a way to evade monitoring

What changed: In pre-launch review we found that the pieces on sizing trades and using a dedicated account originally only explained how to lower the risk of getting caught up in someone else's dirty money, without stating the intent plainly. We added an explicit note: these practices are meant to spread the risk of ordinary funds — they are not, and cannot be, a way to evade monitoring or AML checks; if the source of funds is itself a problem, no arrangement can clean it or make an investigation go away.

Why: This is a compliance line, and it has to be said out loud so no one misreads it as "how to hide." We only cover compliant self-protection; for anything legal, follow your local law and consult a qualified lawyer.