Editorial, AI & Methodology Policy

Who writes CamoCrypt

Content on CamoCrypt is published under a house byline, CamoCrypt Editorial. We use a house byline rather than invented author personas because we would rather be honest about a collective, reviewed process than manufacture the appearance of a single named expert. The byline represents the editorial process described on this page, not one person.

Our use of AI

CamoCrypt is AI-assisted, and we say so plainly. We use AI tools to help draft, structure, and pressure-test explanations. That assistance never ships unreviewed. Every article passes through human editing before publication, and a human editor is responsible for what appears on the page. We treat AI as a fast but unreliable research assistant: useful for a first pass, never trusted on its own.

This matters most for security content. AI is never the final word on a security command, address, configuration value, or procedure. Language models routinely produce plausible-looking commands and flags that are subtly wrong, and in a self-custody context a subtly wrong instruction can cost someone their funds. Any command, code snippet, or step-by-step procedure we publish is checked by a human against the relevant primary source — official documentation, a wallet or protocol’s own guidance, a hardware manufacturer’s manual, or the specification itself — before it goes live.

Verification and sourcing

Our standard is that every factual claim is sourced. During editing we verify claims using live web search against primary and authoritative sources rather than relying on model memory or secondhand summaries. Where a claim rests on a specific document — a CVE, an audit report, a protocol spec, an official advisory — we link to or cite that document so readers can check it themselves.

We prioritise sources in roughly this order:

1. Primary technical sources: official documentation, specifications, source code, hardware manuals, and vendor security advisories.
2. Authoritative records: CVE entries, reputable security researchers’ published findings, and post-incident reports from affected parties.
3. Corroborating reporting: established security and technology press, used to confirm facts already grounded in the sources above, never as the sole basis for a claim.

When we cannot verify something, we either leave it out or clearly mark it as unconfirmed. We would rather publish less and be right than publish more and mislead someone about how to protect their money.

Scope discipline

We hold ourselves to the same limits described across the site: no prices, no forecasts, no price targets, no token promotion, and no investment, financial, legal, or tax advice. Editors are instructed to strip any drafting that drifts toward predicting markets or recommending assets. If a topic cannot be covered without straying into those areas, we do not cover it. Security and education are the entire remit.

The six-month review cycle

Security guidance ages badly. Wallets change defaults, attackers change techniques, and yesterday’s safe habit can become today’s trap. To manage this, security content is re-reviewed on a six-month cycle. On review, an editor rechecks the article against current primary sources, updates anything that has changed, and records the review. Where an article has been reviewed, we aim to show the date of its most recent review so you can judge how current the guidance is. A review that finds nothing to change is still a review, and we would rather tell you “checked, still accurate” than leave you guessing.

Corrections

We make mistakes, and when we do we fix them in the open. Substantive corrections are logged publicly with the date and a description of what changed, as set out in our corrections policy. We do not quietly edit away errors that changed the meaning of a piece.

Independence and conflicts

CamoCrypt does not accept payment to feature, recommend, or omit any token, project, wallet, exchange, or service. We do not run paid “reviews” or sponsored security guidance. If that ever changes, any commercial relationship affecting content would be disclosed on the page it affects. Our only product is the content, and its only value is that you can trust it.

Questions about our methods, or a specific claim you think is wrong, are welcome via the contact page.