Editorial Standards & Disclosures
The rules we follow so that our analysis stays trustworthy. We follow them because they protect you, the reader, and because in a space where transparency is rare, being explicit about how we operate is a feature, not a constraint.
Why these standards exist
Crypto media has a credibility problem. Most creators in this space hold positions in the tokens they cover, trade them actively, and don't disclose any of it. Some are paid by the protocols they write about and don't disclose that either. The result is an information environment where readers can't tell analysis from advertising.
One Digiverse exists to be the honest counterweight. The standards below are how we operate. They're public so you can hold us accountable to them.
One Digiverse does not have a token
To be unambiguous about something we get asked: One Digiverse has never issued, will never issue, and is not affiliated with any cryptocurrency token. We are an editorial publication, not a project. We do not run an ICO, presale, airdrop, or rewards program. We do not have a "DIGI" token, an "ODGV" token, or any token whatsoever.
If you encounter anyone selling, promoting, or offering to buy/sell a "One Digiverse" token on any exchange, in any Telegram or Discord group, or via direct message, it is a scam. Please report it to hello@onedigiverse.com and we will investigate and pursue takedowns where possible.
Our editor T. Patrick McCruitin holds personal positions in several cryptocurrencies and crypto-related equities, all disclosed at the bottom of each column. None of those positions are affiliated with One Digiverse as an entity.
Editorial independence
We don't accept payment, sponsorship, or any other form of compensation from protocols, projects, or platforms covered in our editorial content. If a piece is sponsored, meaning an external party paid for placement, it will be clearly and prominently labeled "Sponsored" at the top of the piece. We've never published sponsored content as of this writing, and if we ever do, you'll know.
We use affiliate links for products and services we personally use and recommend (Coinbase, Crypto.com, Ledger). Affiliate links are always disclosed at the point of use. They do not influence editorial analysis. We never recommend a product solely because it pays an affiliate commission.
The trading-rules framework
T. Patrick McCruitin actively participates in the markets we cover. This is by design. We believe analysis written by someone with real skin in the game is more useful than analysis written by someone watching from the sidelines. But it also creates a conflict of interest, and we manage that conflict through three explicit rules.
Rule 1. The 7-Day Window
T. Patrick McCruitin will not trade any token specifically named in our analysis within seven calendar days before or after publication of the piece in which it is named. This rule prevents the appearance of front-running our own publication.
Practical implication: if we write a deep-dive specifically on Token X on a Sunday, we will not trade Token X from the prior Sunday through the following Sunday. After the window closes, we may trade according to our normal portfolio strategy, with the trade disclosed in the next relevant piece.
Rule 2. Same-Day Trading
T. Patrick McCruitin will never trade tokens specifically named in a piece on the same day that piece is published, period.
Rule 3. Holdings Disclosure
Every piece of analysis that names specific tokens carries a holdings disclosure at the bottom. We disclose whether T. Patrick McCruitin holds positions in any of the named tokens at time of publication, and what direction those positions are (long, short, or none). We do not disclose specific dollar amounts or percentage allocations (that's personal), but we disclose the existence and direction of positions so you can weigh the analysis accordingly.
Why we use this framework instead of a "no trading" rule
Mainstream financial publications like the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg have rules that prevent their journalists from owning individual stocks they cover, often with cooling-off periods of 30 days or more. Those rules work for paid journalists who don't depend on their own trading. They don't work for an independent creator-publication where the analysis is informed by hands-on participation in the markets.
We've chosen a middle path: short cooling-off windows, comprehensive disclosure, and full transparency about the framework itself. Other crypto creators may disagree with our specific rules. That's fine. The more important thing is that they have any rules at all, and that they publish them. Most don't.
Framework analysis vs. named-token analysis
Across the Digiverse will sometimes publish framework pieces, analyses that describe categories, criteria, or theses without naming specific tokens. These are intentionally name-free. They give you a lens to evaluate the space without our specific picks influencing your research.
When we do publish named-token analysis, we follow the trading rules above and disclose holdings explicitly. Both kinds of analysis are valuable. Framework pieces teach you to think; named-token pieces show you our work.
Scenarios, not predictions
One Digiverse covers things that make and lose people money. Honest coverage of that subject sometimes requires engaging with where prices might go, what conditions would produce different outcomes, and what the bull and bear cases actually look like. We do this through scenarios, not predictions.
We will not tell you what is going to happen. "Bitcoin to one million by 2030" is not analysis. It is marketing. We do not publish single-number forecasts of where an asset is going. We do not assert that any specific price level will be reached by any specific date. We do not make calls.
We will tell you what is on the table. When the math, the flows, or the structural conditions point toward a range of outcomes, we present the bull case, the base case, and the bear case side by side, with the assumptions that produce each clearly stated. We name what would have to be true for each scenario to play out, and what would invalidate it. The reader does the synthesis.
The discipline that separates this from speculation:
The work is shown. If we discuss a scenario where Bitcoin trades in a particular range, we publish the model, the historical analog, or the analyst consensus that produces that range. The reader can disagree with the inputs and reach a different conclusion. Nothing is asserted on authority.
The uncertainty is named. We will not say "this will happen." We will say "if these conditions hold, the structural math points here, and here is what would break that." Probability framing is intentional. Confidence is calibrated, not inflated.
Attribution is explicit. When we reference targets from outside analysts (Standard Chartered, Bitwise, Galaxy Research, individual technical analysts cited by name), we attribute them clearly. We report what the market is saying. We are not the source of the call.
Track record is permanent. Pieces stay on the site, including the ones where the bear case played out and the bull case did not, or vice versa. We do not curate our archives to flatter our prior framing. If a scenario we covered turned out wrong, the piece stays up. That visibility is part of the deal.
The line between this and what most crypto media does is real. A channel that says "BTC to 250K" without showing the model is in the prediction business. A publication that says "the structural conditions for a 250K base case require X, Y, Z, and here is what each requires to be true" is in the analysis business. We are the second kind.
Sources and accuracy
We rely on publicly verifiable sources: regulatory filings, company announcements, on-chain data, peer-reviewed research, and reporting by major financial publications. When we cite a number, we link to or reference its source. When we make a forecast, we explain the assumptions behind it. We don't trade in speculation dressed up as fact.
If we make a factual error, we correct it. Substantive corrections are noted at the top of the corrected piece with the date of the change.
What this isn't
None of the analysis published on One Digiverse is investment advice. We are not registered investment advisors. We don't know your financial situation, your risk tolerance, or your goals. Even our most thoroughly researched pieces are starting points for your own thinking, not endpoints.
If you're making consequential financial decisions, talk to a qualified professional who can evaluate your specific situation. Treat our work as one input among many.
Holding us accountable
If you believe we've violated any of these standards, email hello@onedigiverse.com. We take these obligations seriously and will investigate any credible concern. Substantive violations will be addressed publicly.
These standards may evolve as our publication grows. Material changes will be announced and dated. The version below will always be the current version.
Current version
Version 1.1. Effective June 2026. Initial publication.