Evidence hierarchy
Criteria definitions
- Workflow fit: whether the product completes the task stated by the page.
- Cost clarity: whether a reader can find and understand the current price or fee path.
- Safety and control: account protection, permissions, custody, backup, and recovery duties.
- Coverage: support for the reader’s exact region, asset, account, or data source.
- Usability: clear setup, error review, and exit steps.
- Evidence quality: direct, dated, and specific support for each material claim.
Weighting and scoring policy
Research process
- Define the reader task and region.
- Open the official agreement, fee or price page, help center, and security material.
- Record what the source says and its access date.
- Test only claims that can be checked without exposing private data or funds.
- Write the limits beside the capability.
- Run the final copy through the Token Metrics Blog & SEO editorial review before publication.
Freshness and update policy
Limitations and conflicts
Worked example
Frequently asked questions
Do you rank by affiliate payout?
No. Compensation must not change the evidence rule or product order.
Why are some numbers omitted?
Can a product be called safe?
How can a reader challenge a finding?
How one exchange route is tested
The method evaluates a defined route rather than an exchange name in isolation. The test record states the user’s location, funding method, asset, order type, amount, interface, and withdrawal destination. This prevents a retail preview from being compared with an unrelated active-trading tier. It also makes the result reproducible when products expose prices in different ways.
Cost evidence follows the interface
For Coinbase retail, applicable pricing is checked at the final transaction preview. For Kraken, the reviewer records the current maker-and-taker schedule and the activity tier used in the example. Funding and withdrawal costs are kept separate from trading costs. If spread or an item cannot be observed from the saved evidence, the method reports the gap instead of converting it into an invented all-in percentage.
The operational loop can override price
Each candidate receives a small deposit, order, and withdrawal test when access permits. Reviewers verify the asset and network, save previews and receipts, record elapsed steps, and note any restriction that requires support. A venue can lose the decision despite a lower published trading fee if the required funding rail or exit path does not fit the scenario. Failed or unavailable tests remain limitations; they are not scored as successes.
Security language and correction policy
Security documentation is evidence of stated controls, not proof that a venue is safe. The review checks user-facing protection and recovery steps while preserving the custody boundary. The FDIC fact sheet supports a separate warning that crypto assets must not be described as insured bank deposits merely because a regulated bank is involved. If a fee schedule, agreement, or feature changes, the affected route is rerun. The stored source, access date, input, preview, output, and limitation let readers challenge the finding without relying on a hidden score.
Simple review note
The final note uses plain facts. It states the route, the test sum, and the date. It lists what worked and what did not. It names each gap. It does not call a site safe. It does not guess at a fee that was not shown. A new reader should be able to run the same steps and see why the result may change.
Sources checked
- https://www.fdic.gov/news/fact-sheets/crypto-fact-sheet-7-28-22.html
- https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/application-fincens-regulations-persons-administering
- https://www.fdic.gov/news/fact-sheets/crypto-fact-sheet-7-28-22.html
- https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/application-fincens-regulations-persons-administering
- https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/pricing-and-fees/fees
- https://www.kraken.com/features/fee-schedule
Use this method in your next comparison
A safer exchange test plan
Exchange failure modes to plan for
Questions for support
- Which legal entity and agreement apply to my location?
- Which fee schedule applies to this exact screen and order type?
- Which networks can I use for this asset?
- What account recovery proof may be required?
- How can I export a complete transaction record?
How corrections are handled
Evidence notes to keep
Prepared by Token Metrics Research Team
Evidence accessed: 2026-07-14. Product terms can change; verify dynamic terms before acting.
Editorial disclosure: This material is educational and does not give investment, tax, legal, or custody advice. Compensation from a link does not control the method or verdict.
Reproducible evaluation protocol
Reproduce a review by recording jurisdiction, account tier, payment rail, order type, quoted spread, trading fee, withdrawal fee, security controls, and support test on the same date. Score only observed or officially documented inputs; mark unavailable fields as unknown rather than zero.
- Freeze scope: record product, plan/model, jurisdiction, interface, and test date.
- Archive evidence: save the official URL, access date, relevant passage, and observed screen for each input.
- Run the fixture: use the same scenario and expected result for every candidate.
- Score independently: two researchers assign factor values from the evidence, then resolve disagreements in writing.
- Calculate: multiply each 0–100 factor value by its declared weight and sum; round only the final result to the nearest whole number.
- Fail closed: do not publish a number when a required input is unknown or a must-have safety check fails.
Freshness and correction rule
For crypto exchange methodology, keep the method clear. Set the scope. Use one date. Check each fact. Save each source. Run the same test. Log each gap. Show the math. State each limit. Update changed facts. Stop if proof is missing.
Material evidence and source map
- Exchange fee evidence comes from the current venue fee schedule, not a third-party “from” price. Official source (accessed 2026-07-14).
- Custodial risk language must distinguish exchange controls from deposit insurance; the FDIC states that deposit insurance does not protect against failure of a non-bank crypto custodian. Official source (accessed 2026-07-14).
- Availability and compliance checks use current legal terms and regulator guidance rather than an exchange’s marketing summary. Official source (accessed 2026-07-14).
Evidence note 1: crypto exchange methodology
Exchange fee evidence comes from the current venue fee schedule, not a third-party “from” price. For this page, that evidence sets a must-have check before the user pays or moves value. A reader should open the cited page, record the relevant product, plan, model, location, or interface, and save the date. Then the reader should test the narrow workflow described here. If the documented path and the observed path differ, the observed exception stays unresolved and the recommendation pauses. This rule prevents a broad brand claim from replacing a product-specific decision.
Evidence note 2: crypto exchange methodology
Custodial risk language must distinguish exchange controls from deposit insurance; the FDIC states that deposit insurance does not protect against failure of a non-bank crypto custodian. For this page, that evidence defines a live trial that can disprove the recommendation. A reader should open the cited page, record the relevant product, plan, model, location, or interface, and save the date. Then the reader should test the narrow workflow described here. If the documented path and the observed path differ, the observed exception stays unresolved and the recommendation pauses. This rule prevents a broad brand claim from replacing a product-specific decision.
Evidence note 3: crypto exchange methodology
Availability and compliance checks use current legal terms and regulator guidance rather than an exchange’s marketing summary. For this page, that evidence shows which record or control the user must retain for an independent review. A reader should open the cited page, record the relevant product, plan, model, location, or interface, and save the date. Then the reader should test the narrow workflow described here. If the documented path and the observed path differ, the observed exception stays unresolved and the recommendation pauses. This rule prevents a broad brand claim from replacing a product-specific decision.
A falsifiable decision record for crypto exchange methodology
Reproduce a review by recording jurisdiction, account tier, payment rail, order type, quoted spread, trading fee, withdrawal fee, security controls, and support test on the same date. Score only observed or officially documented inputs; mark unavailable fields as unknown rather than zero. Write down the expected result before the test. Keep the source URL, access date, chosen settings, observed output, and any error or manual correction. Define a stop rule as well. A missing must-have feature, unexplained total cost, failed recovery or withdrawal, incomplete record import, or unsupported location is a reason to stop. The page’s verdict changes when that evidence changes; familiarity with the brand is not a substitute.
Plain-language field check for crypto exchange methodology
Use this check for crypto exchange methodology. Start small. Open each source. Note its date. Save the key terms. Name your exact task. List each must-have. Mark each unknown. Test one normal case. Test one hard case. Try the exit path. Keep the result. Count the full cost. Note each warning. Do not guess. Do not share secrets. Stop when a core fact is missing. Ask support a clear question. Save its reply. Repeat the test after a major change. Choose only when the evidence fits your task. Keep your own copy of the record.
Continue within this topic
For crypto exchange methodology, use Best crypto exchanges and Exchange fee calculator to compare this decision with the cluster methodology and alternatives.
