RugDoc Editorial Policy

Our editorial policy sheds light on how we work to ensure everything we publish is helpful and independent. DeFi content can have an impact on people’s finances and life, as is the case with our founders getting rugpulled, and so we approach everything with painstaking rigor.

One thing you’ll hear very often from us is that we’re not financial advisors or auditors, and nothing published on RugDoc.io constitutes investment advice. Our risk frameworks, tools, and education are not buy signals, and we still believe you need to do your own research and get as much information as possible before making a decision. We’d very much like to be a tool in your process, but we should never be the only reference.

While we initially started creating content for an audience of newcomers, retail investors looking to understand DeFi, we’ve seen increased interest from project teams seeking pre-launch guidance, as well as from researchers wanting more clarity on the more technical aspects of DeFi.

Editorial Principles

Our focus at RugDoc is DeFi clarity and utility first and foremost. We do our best to write in plain English, and simple explanations wherever possible so that people with no prior knowledge can understand the ecosystem. For this reason, we prioritize how-to guides and definition pages, information that’s replicable by anyone interested in doing their own research.

Wherever possible, we back up all of our claims with on-chain events, reputable documentation, and code references. If we do not have hard evidence for our claims, we clearly mark the statements as unverified or claims only partially backed by evidence.

Although we aim for 100% accuracy, the DeFi space is dynamic and can change from one day to the next, especially in light of nation states and big tech companies moving into the space. Therefore, we commit to regularly reviewing and updating our core educational content to reflect new technologies and risks, resources permitting. In some cases, we might be able to do this on a daily basis, whereas in others it might take a bit longer.

In line with the above, we are a team of humans working together, so errors are sometimes bound to happen. If we miss anything or we make a mistake, we’ll be issuing a transparent correction, updating the original accordingly.

For significant factual errors, we will update the article and add a ‘Correction’ note at the bottom/top, dated, explaining what was changed and why. In the rare event that we find an entire article is fundamentally flawed, we will replace it with a retraction notice, explaining the error.

We hold ourselves accountable to the community, and while we may not be perfect, we sure as hell can be honest.

Project Review Process and Sponsored Content/Partnerships

Sponsored content is clearly marked at the top of the page with a sponsored tag or a visible ad disclosure. Although we may earn commissions from affiliate marketing type of arrangements, we maintain complete editorial independence in terms of what and how we publish.

Affiliate partnerships or sponsorships of any kind have no influence over our conclusions or risk assessments. Favorable ratings cannot be paid for; they are the result of an extensive internal review and evaluation process.

For presales, that includes, but is not limited to, checking the following:

• The existence and validity of completed security audits by parties such as CertiK or SolidProof.
• Whether critical issues were found and/or addressed.
• Whether the audit covers all project-related smart contracts, from presale to the token, vesting, staking, liquidity lock, to timelocks, and more.
• The ability/inability to increase total supply (minting new coins), but also whether contract logic can be changed post-deployment
• Ownership status for smart contracts and restrictions on token transfers.
• Blockchain explorer status and whether the information there matches whitepaper statements.

…and more. Our purpose is to go deep into the details of each project and identify discrepancies and noteworthy information for potential investors or interested parties.

For instance, if block explorer analysis reveals that 14.4% of a token’s total supply is allocated to infrastructure development despite the whitepaper mentioning 15%, we’d see this as a crucial detail that can impact the long-term health of the project and the team’s reputation.

Everything we review has to adhere to extensive internal policies and testing methodologies outlining a standard set of steps to be followed when reviewing a project of a particular subset.

If you’re curious about the depth of our investigations, please read our reviews and assessments, interacting with and sharing what we publish helps us!

Security Disclosures and Legal Disclaimers

RugDoc offers DeFi reviews and assessments, not audits. We are an informational platform, and our content is for educational purposes only. Nothing we publish should be construed as an endorsement, recommendation, or financial advice to buy, sell, or hold any asset we investigate or discuss.

Our risk labels and other tools are intended as a quick source of information for triage. Where there isn’t enough data, we will come out with a partial assessment or deferred assessment, where there’s an upcoming development.

We define reviews as a high-effort technical safety check performed by our experienced team. Although we aim to be as comprehensive as possible, we cannot guarantee that we’ll be able to find everything. The goal is to identify common red flags, rugpull functions, and other significant and often-missed warning signals for the community.

Audits, on the other hand, are slow, formal processes that cost tens of thousands of dollars, since their goal is to identify all possible vulnerabilities associated with a project.

If you’d like to get in touch, report an inaccuracy, or suggest an improvement of any kind, please reach out via [email protected] or our Contact Us page, and we will respond as soon as possible. We’d love to hear from you.