Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptocurrency/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


There is also a taskforce at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made an article for the Dfinity project. Collaboration welcome, especially if anyone has a good grasp of what exactly they're planning on doing. Λυδαcιτγ 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comment on Brave (web browser)

There is a request for comment on the Brave (web browser) article:

Should the Brave web browser be classified as a pay-to-surf web browser?

If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Brave (web browser)#Request for comment on "pay to surf" classification. — Newslinger talk 20:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk which may be of interest to people watching this page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cryptocurrency notability essay

Has anybody made a start at an essay on cryptocurrency notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just imagining a digested version of the WP:RSN discussions ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be good, I think. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with an article?

I was wondering if someone could take a look at Privacy and blockchain. I've tagged the article as needing work, but my knowledge on the topic is pretty slim to almost nonexistent. Given that cryptocurrency articles are held under sanctions, I figured that this really needed attention from someone familiar with the topic.

What I'm predominantly concerned with is whether or not the topic is redundant to the existing article on blockchain and if it approaches the topic in a proper fashion. It doesn't have any glaring errors, although I can see the use of things like "as previously described" and "however". Can someone check this page out? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of IOHK-related content

Hello, I’m an editor with IOHK, a blockchain developer, and have just joined Wikipedia to try to find out why anything to do with the company is being deleted. The issue has been raised with IOHK by various Wikipedia contributors who have tried to put up text about Cardano, IOHK and Ada, or links about IOHK. It has also been raised by academics working with IOHK because links to content on university websites have been deleted (see page Even a draft page about Cardano has been deleted. I have seen one contributor threatened with being blocked from Wikipedia for adding any more 'IOHK spam'.

I note that the account I set up to learn how to use Wikipedia and communicate these concerns has already been marked ‘Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace’.

The result is that I can only find one IOHK mention on public pages (for Cardano, in a graphic). Twenty or 30 coins and tokens are covered at the Cryptocurrency page, but there is no mention in the text of Ada or Cardano. Nor is either mentioned on the list of cryptocurrencies. Cardano is mentioned in a graphic showing the 10 biggest coins by market cap, but is the only one not listed in the text on the page.

The justification for this appears to come out of a general sanctions policy on editing blockchain and cryptocurrency pages. However, it seems to have been imposed on IOHK-related material far more than any other crypto content.

Not only do these sanctions leave a gap in the encyclopedia’s coverage, they give the impression that Wikipedia thinks IOHK - and the eminent computer scientists and legal academics working for the company – are involved in a scam.

I’m not sure how to go about this, but would it be possible to discuss establishing whether Cardano/Ada should be added to the above pages; whether a page about the currency should be sought; and whether academics’ biographies are allowed to mention they work for IOHK. I have also posted this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Cryptocurrency_task_forceIOHKwriter (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC) IOHKwriter (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHKwriter (talkcontribs) 19:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IOHKwriter: It was deleted for lack of notability, see WP:Articles for deletion/Cardano (platform). Continue the discussion at Draft talk:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform). Џ 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Џ: Thank you for responding. Can I say though that the explanation raises more questions than it answers (and I base this judgment on, among other things, 15 years' experience on the Financial Times where I was a senior journalist). - Is Cardano notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia?: clearly this is ultimately for Wikipedia to decide, but it does seem odd that Cardano/Ada does not have a page when all of the 30 coins/tokens on the list of cryptocurrencies page do. This looks like a gap in Wikipedia coverage. - Even the list of cryptocurrencies page does not list Cardano/Ada. This is even stranger given that it is shown at the top of the page in the graphic as a top 10 currency. I note that one of the comments on WP:Articles for deletion/Cardano (platform) votes to delete the Cardano page on the grounds that Ada had fallen out of the top 10; but never even being in this top 10 has not affected the notability of any other coin. - Finally, I can find no mention of IOHK, Ada or Cardano in any Wikipedia text (the graphic being the only mention). I have discovered in Talk pages that mentions of IOHK are being deleted within hours as 'IOHK spam' with no further discussion or explanation apart from it being a general sanction to do with blockchain problems. I have found no evidence of the sanction being employed in a similar way against any other blockchain developer. It would seem reasonable to me to: ask for Ada to be added to the list of cryptocurrencies; not automatically regard any mention of IOHK as 'spam'; ask for a Cardano page to be created. Thanks for considering thisIOHKwriter (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IOHKwriter: "I have found no evidence of the sanction being employed in a similar way against any other blockchain developer." From the current top 10 WP:Articles for deletion/TRON (cryptocurrency) and WP:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV also don't have articles. Џ 21:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Џ: Although these are sanctions, they are not to the extent, or with anything like the speed, of the IOHK sanctions; Bitcoin SV is covered on other Bitcoin pages. I’ve done some research on a newspaper database ( to try to gain an unbiased assessment of ‘notability’ for Wikipedia’s list of cryptocurrencies page (where Cardano is not listed). A search on ‘[currency name] AND cryptocurrency’ across all dates for ‘major US news’ or ‘UK all sources’ removes the hype-driven crypto magazines. The result: 8 coins that you list received fewer than 10 mentions; Tron and Bitcoin SV, both of which you plan to delete, both get 27; there are then 4 coins below Cardano's 79 results; Neo gets 85; there are then 11 coins with <1000; Ethereum, Ripple and Litecoin get <3000 mentions; Bitcoin gets 10,949. The search is, obviously, biased against coins such as Bitconnect, Cardano, Kodakcoin and Petro that only came into existence within the past two years. This research suggests that Cardano should be in the list and have its own page because about half (14) of Wikipedia’s list of cryptocurrencies are less notable. Of course, there may be other reasons why a currency is notable, such as having one of the biggest capitalisations (which would, in fact, be an argument for including Ada/Cardano). From a qualitative viewpoint, I would suggest that the academic underpinning, functional programming strategy, proof-of-stake underpinning and market cap of Cardano would all render it more notable. I can send you the results if you want. Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.IOHKwriter (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually considered a failing argument at Wikipedia for keeping something - the usual answer is "so clean those up too". Rubbish littered about is a reason to clean up the rubbish, not add more rubbish.
The rules of Wikipedia aren't a legalistic state machine for those promoting a business - such as yourself - to reverse-engineer the combination to. They're guides to the human judgement of those of us who - unlike you, who have said you're on a promotional mission - are here to write an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a bit terse, sorry. To hopefully be a bit more helpful: Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) is alive and well and in progress. 100% of the problem is getting excellent third-party cites - not primary, not crypto blogs. You have to have cites good enough to convince people who are heartily sick of crypto spammers. This is an exceedingly high bar. Arguably an unfair one! Nevertheless - it is the bar we have. And that's the best advice I can give on how to pass it.
I'd advise you as an IOHK person not to edit directly on the draft - but you should totally be on the talk page, submitting high-quality third-party WP:RSes. Watch out for Forbes "contributor" blogs though, they're a hazard - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Gerard: David, thank you for the comments. I will follow these up. IOHKwriter (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Gerard: →1. Rubbish argument: I don’t think this applies. The development of blockchains is a landmark in digital technology. I’ve lived through and reported on the advent of microcomputers, email, mobile phones, wireless tech, ARM chips, the web, search engines and social media, and blockchains have the potential to be a game changer. Although there is much hype around cryptocurrencies, they have a role too. If the "so clean those up too" tactic was applied to blockchains and cryptocurrencies in the way it has been to IOHK/Ada/Cardano, there would only be a page left on bitcoin. →2. Rules of Wikipedia: I don't regard this as 'a promotional mission'. It started out as an investigation and has identified a hole in your coverage. I have chosen a name that makes my professional position totally clear for all to see. In learning the basics of Wikipedia, I have avoided editing any pages where there might be any conflict of interest. When I was asked to do this by IOHK, I thought it was paranoia. However, with my journalist hat on - and having worked at and written books for world-leading academic publishers - I can see that something has gone wrong in your coverage. Take a look at that list of cryptocurrencies page: compare the graphic with the text. It is clear something is missing. →3. I'm pleased to see the Cardano draft page has reappeared. Having had to handle letters pages and social media on national newspapers I can appreciate the spam problem. →4. Thanks for that tip. As I said above, there would be an obvious conflict if I started editing pages. I'll look to the Talk pages. IOHKwriter (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Contribution


I made an informative article about the first decentralized exchange on the EOS blockchain and I was wondering when it will get approved. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates to Ethereum article

Hey all - I'm Alex with campaign consulting firm Kivvit. I'm looking to work with some editors to make basic updates to the Ethereum article. Full disclosure - this is on behalf of one of my clients, Parity Technologies. All COI has been disclosed per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. I've posted an edit request here, but so far editors have not updated the article. Because I'm here for Parity Technologies through Kivvit and have a financial conflict of interest, I'm keeping my activity on talk pages rather than directly edit the article.

Are there any editors here that would be willing to take a look at my request on the Ethereum talk page? AlexLewis13 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More eyes: crypto blogs as sourcing/notability

Cryptocurrency/blockchain article Solidity is largely sourced to crypto blogs and passing mentions in minor possibly-RSes. I tagged the bad sources, which is most of them. There is some discussion - a couple of editors want to use the crypto blogs as sourcing anyway, though we don't accept crypto blogs as RSes on any other cryptocurrency/blockchain articles after the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk. The current dicussion is at Talk:Solidity#Sourcing_is_not_good. More apposite opinions would be helpful. I was about to just clear the bad sources out of the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on CoinDesk as a source

Should CoinDesk be removed as a source from all articles on Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_-_CoinDesk_as_a_source --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is stuck under submission

2 moths passed already after the last submisiion, but nothing is going on with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooper7777 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

probably because nothing's improved since the previous submission - the cites are to crypto sites, Forbes contributor blogs and other non-RSes, and the RS cites don't mention the particular blockchain the article's advertising - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. Added a couple of academic articles in citations. Should i also remove all "the cites are to crypto sites, Forbes contributor blogs and other non-RSes"? - Cooper7777 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability for Draft:CoinFlip

Is this company or product notable? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not per the sources - which are crypto sites and barely-rewritten churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing dispute between me and Micah71381 on this article - I suspect what we need is more eyes on it - please come by, look at the sourcing and see what we can do to find RSes for it - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideas welcomed on crypto article for Signpost

and the issues that will come up. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#How_to_write_an_article_about_cryptocurrency_on_Wikipedia_for_the_Signpost_that_won't_just_make_things_worse? - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the interested

Do "no-coiners" gate-keep Crypto Wikipedia?. These people should of course make their own... Oh. They did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See coming Signpost article too Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus - the joys of trying to edit properly in an area which suffers a firehose of spam - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read your article, and I ctrl-f:d Wikipedia in that discussion [1] you linked. Quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also found this [2] but you probably read that a year ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petro and cryptocurrency

Could somebody with better knowledge tell if Petro (cryptocurrency), Venezuela's digital currency, is a cryptocurrency? To my understanding it is centralized, price fixed by the government and not demand, and not mineable.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss here Talk:Petro (cryptocurrency)#Is the Petro a cryptocurrency?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldsomeone please take a look at this--it needs an expert. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signpost article on crypto on Wikipedia

This is going live in a week. I would like your opinions on if I've misstated how things are - I'm speaking as just one editor, not authoritatively, and I don't want to get it wrong. In particular, I think I've stated correctly how sourcing works in practice (even if we don't have a written guideline in place) - but if anyone disagrees, I need to hear it - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For future reference, or for anyone looking for the article and not a red link, the article written by David Gerald is now located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/In focus. MarkZusab (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article Crypto art

Could use an expert look, ideally a visual if any are available under Creative Commons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's surprisingly well sourced! - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help correcting mistakes about world's largest digital currency asset manager

Hi. There are various mistakes and omissions in the article about Digital Currency Group, specifically for Grayscale Investments, the largest digital currency asset manager in the world. I have endeavored to write with a NPOV and only include educational content. Since anything regarding crypto is somewhat controversial and requires careful independent consideration, I hope that someone from this project might do a review. Talk:Digital Currency Group#Corrections and Updates for Review July 17 (The standard “Request Edit” queue is not for subject matter that is controversial in any respect, but I hope the experts in this project can properly evaluate the proposals.) CertifiedTurtle (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, I had created my first article on Blockchains / Cryptocurrencies some months back. Now it has been nominated for deletion. Could you people kindly look into this article and develop it with reliable resources,if possible. Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Sumcoin notable?

A new editor is trying to start a draft on this topic (editor's contributions).

If the topic is clearly non-notable he should be gently discouraged. If it is clearly notable, he could probably use some help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most cryptos aren't. Judging by CMC and the nature of cryptos (ie practically any notable launched crypto will have a > 1000 market cap & more than one exchange listing), I'd guess this isn't either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks. I've put comments on the two drafts, which are mostly blank. I've also invited his new editor to this WikiProject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking latest guidelines on reliable sources

I am seeking clarification. I've been reading a lot about this project and following various links, but it's still not entirely clear to me. I have read the views of user:David_Gerard. Are CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph entirely banned as reliable sources, or can they be used with caution? Is it ok to use certain crypto news publications in an article if the article also uses other reliable sources from mainstream publications? Once a subject has been labeled as notable, can it then include CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph as sources? I just looked at Zcash and saw CoinDesk in the references. Should that reference be deleted? Thanks for the guidance. JournalismResearch (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CoinDesk is specifically listed in WP:RSP as "generally unreliable", so it's not a Reliable Source in Wikipedia terms, and should generally not be used as a reference. (As such, I just removed it from Zcash.) The rest of the crypto press are actually worse than CoinDesk - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I missed that note about CoinDesk in WP:RSP Is there a discussion somewhere about adding CoinTelegraph to WP:RSP as "generally unreliable"? Is it really worse than CoinDesk? I am trying to do some research now. JournalismResearch (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion there talks about the crypto press. Basically, it looks like specialist trade press but is advertising for the publishers' holdings (the CoinDesk RSP entry talks about it, but it's common to basically all of them), and large chunks of it are blatantly pay-for-play. The general attitude is that if something in crypto/blockchain is actually notable, it'll be in the mainstream RSes - the finance press in particular covers this stuff much more since 2017. And there's peer-reviewed academic sources for technical stuff - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for review on Decred article draft

Hello, please help take a look at Decred’s draft and see what can be added and taken out. Here is the link to the draft: Thanks. AlikotoSam (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every cite except Investopedia is to a crypto blog - no way it'd pass muster. Is there coverage in mainstream sources, or peer-reviewed academic sources? - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Gerard I have been able to dig up a few credible sources like Forbes, Investopedia and Nasdaq. I hope those are enough to get this draft approved. Can you help dig up a few more to add? Thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the Forbes articles are contributor blogs, and if the Nasdaq pieces are crypto site reprints, it'll fail again. I have looked before and found zero coverage outside crypto sites and blogs. You will absolutely need proper mainstream RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Gerard I just found some form of coverage in some books. I have added them and taken out the crypto blog posts and resubmitted. I hope that does it for now.--AlikotoSam (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Gerard Forbes, Nasdaq and WSJ all seem to be independently written to me. I did a background check on the writers and they are not paid-to-write contributors. I hope the draft is accepted this time.--AlikotoSam (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you need to review WP:RSP. But basically - you don't like what you're being told, and you don't understand it, so you assume you can just keep going and it'll be fine. I see on the draft itself you were told the same things I just told you. You need to read, understand, and take the issues seriously if you don't want this article deleted immediately, because that's what will happen - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Gerard I have read and I am understanding gradually. It isn't the case of me not wanting to listen or adhere to what I am being told. I am learning as I work on this. I have found several journals and books that speak about Decred and I have included them all. Please kindly take a look and let me know what you think so far. Thanks!--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking Decred and all other altcoins need to find notability in the mainstream press before they can come to wikipedia. Such as wsj, nyt, fortune, forbes, ft, etc. All these are talking about crypto these days. Journals and books (that in many cases are self-published) are not sufficient to demonstrate notability for inclusion in wp. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Updating OKEx

Hi, I have noticed some flag about poor resourcing and notability issue with the article written for OKEx. I have decided to update the same. I have created an updated version of the page at my sandbox. Can anyone please suggest if it is good to go by sparing their valuable time. Thanks. Harryishere (talk) 14.40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I see your sandbox is empty, maybe you have already merged it. Feel free to ping me in the future if you would like me to have a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two semi-protected edit requests on Talk:Legality of bitcoin by country or territory

I'm not familiar enough with the topic to verify the claims are accurate or if the sources cited by those requesting the changes are reliable. 18 October, 15 November davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too. I think that Iran is still listed as illegal even though it has has some recent press starting to clarify the role of bitcoin. I am not sure if the article is at all up to date or if anyone is maintaining it. If it is far out of date then it should be tagged or deleted. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of NASDAQ News reprints as sources

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NASDAQ_News - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone give an honest take on the MetaMask AfD? Whether in favor of Keep or Delete, it doesn't matter to me. Just need some rational, fact-based feedback as the latest discussion is quickly unraveling. HiddenLemon // talk 11:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project page

Hello members of WikiProject Cryptocurrency. I just want everyone to know that I made modifications to the main project page, but before I get into the details, I marked this WikiProject from being active to semi-active based on the daily editing activity of all the members. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. Now the project page I added a orange-like color format from the typical white page, and moved the article alert section from the very bottom to up-top above the members list so no one would miss out on any alerts. I also made a shortcut via WP:CRYPCUR leading to this project because the project didn't have one for some reason. And finally, I made a userbox for members and a barnstar (See WikiProject_Cryptocurrency#Templates). Jerm (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the title says, I've renamed MakerDAO because Dai is more well-known and likely of more interest from an encyclopedic standpoint. Either name would probably work fine since the two are very closely related subjects, but titling the article as Dai (cryptocurrency) will probably make it easier for people searching for information. In any case, I'm sure much of the content won't end up focusing exclusively on MakerDAO as its developed.

Because of this name change there needs to be some copyediting and organization to reflect the new name. I actually ended up creating a new template to add as a notice for anyone that comes across the article to avoid confusion. I'll try to make some those changes soon.

Just wanted to let y'all know about this. If I shouldn't have renamed it for whatever reason, let me know. HiddenLemon // talk 08:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hedera Hashgraph

Hello, my name is John. I am seeking help from someone in the community who can make improvements on the Wikipedia page titled "Hashgraph" ( the Algorithm)

The problem with this page is that it only discusses the Algorithm that Dr. Leemon Baird invented.

There needs to be a page on "Hedera Hashgraph" (The Network) either as an independent page or the title needs to be changed from "Hashgraph" to "Hedera Hashgraph". I'm not sure which is the best way.

Hedera Hashgraph (The Network) is OWNED and governed by some of the worlds most well respected companies and organizations.

Including Google, IBM, DLA Piper, Boeing, University College London and LG Electronics - All the organizations have signed an LLC and own (Term Limit) this Decentralized network, but currently there is no mention of this information in Wikipedia.

There needs to be sub-section on Hedera Hashgraph Services as well -

(HCS) Hedera Consensus Service

HCS is being used by the Coupon Bureau -

The Coupon Bureau is the non-profit that developed the latest world wide standard (8112) for digital coupons and Hedera Hashgraph is being used as the Trust layer for this new worldwide standard. This new standard is set to replace all the old bar code coupon standard (8110).

The bottom line with me on this is when I look down this list of topics ( ) I see a LOT of DLT (blockchain) networks and cryptocurrencies who have not been able to achieve an inkling of what Hedera Hashgraph has already achieved in bringing the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) space mainstream, but yet I see NO mention of Hedera Hashgraph in Wikipedia at ALL.

When I search for Hedera Hashgraph in Wiki I see basically nothing. It almost looks like someone is intentionally against providing information on this topic.

Can someone please take this topic on and help improve the Hedera Hashgraph topic in Wiki, please help? Vicwd (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicwd (talkcontribs) 14:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I recreated an article on VeChain, but it has been deleted by User:David Gerard due to lack of reliable sources and a former AFD. He has pointed me to WP:AFC, where I have now created a draft for VeChain at Draft:VeChain and added another source. If anyone is interested in improving or reviewing that draft, feel welcome to do so. I believe this is a notable platform and deserves its own article, but evidently not everyone shares my opinion. --TadejM my talk 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TadejM There's some news articles about it: [3]. Not sure if any of the articles will provide additional content though, but then again, I only did a quick glance at them. Jerm (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jerm. Thank you a lot for providing this. I have checked these sources, but can't find any good source that is not a press release. I have now added two independent sources (Investopedia and a monograph on practical utility of blockchains), which I estimate and hope satisfy the RS criteria. If you have any specific RS in mind, please let me know. The VeChain platform has been making great strides recently and this article will be needed sooner or later. --TadejM my talk 21:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TadejM Btw, keep an eye on the link I provided. More news articles just came out. It’s not as significant, but there’s a news article that has to do with COVID vaccinations. Jerm (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Jerm. I have added further sources and reopened the request. --TadejM my talk 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TadejM Here are two sources from Google Books. The first one gives details about the startup.

Jerm (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you also for this. --TadejM my talk 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability for Draft:Lolli (company)

Need feedback on whether this company is notable. Please see talk page for WP:THREE sources provided. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published my first cryptocurrency article

I made sure to only use legitimate secondary sources. I don't know if anyone got an alert about my draft in the Article Alerts section of our community page, because I see that some newer drafts have been reviewed ahead of mine. It's here: Draft:Celsius_(cryptocurrency_wallet). If any of you have the power to approve AfC, I would be delighted if I didn't have to wait months for another editor to stumble across it and publish it. Thank you. JournalismResearch (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Petro (cryptocurrency)#Requested move 27 March 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New draft started

Just a notice to editors that I recently started Draft:Britcoin (Cryptocurrency). Elijahandskip (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of Pkt Cash

I was going to take Pkt Cash to AfD as it appears non-notable to me; the sourcing is pretty weak, and I can't find anything better. However, I thought I'd first get a second opinion from those in the know. Views? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Algorand Article Awaits Review

Friendly heads up -- the Algorand article I submitted has been patiently awaiting review for 45 days.

As noted on the Talk page of the article, I've attempted to make the article as easy as possible to review.

AspiringArticleWriter (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Bit4you

Hi there, hope you are doing great! I submitted for AfC Draft:Bit4you and was hoping that someone can review it as well as leave any comments considering changes. If anyone is interested in improving or reviewing that draft, feel free to do so. Many thanks in advance! Anna levchuk (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garlicoin Page

Just started editing an old version of the garlicoin crypto page. Any and all help would be appreciated! First time editing a page so tips and tricks on sourcing would be helpful. Cheers. ItsOkayImHere (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ItsOkayImHere: thanks for asking for advice. I will put the page on my watchlist so I can comment on the developments, if that can be helpful to you. Please remember to source everything to reliable sources and to make sure you are not using a promotional tone. Also, the consensus on Wikipedia is to consider crypto-centric publications like Coinbase, Decrypt or CoinTelegraph as unreliable, so please do not use them as sources. Finally, please remember to sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Do not hesitate to leave a message on my talk page if you need any help. JBchrch talk 11:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JBchrch: Thanks for being so active and getting back quickly. I'll take any advice and help i can get from someone who's been on here for anytime more than myself! I ran into an automod wanting to delete the logo I added. I attempted to add in a proper permission tag for the GNU license, but I'm unsure if I got the syntax anywhere near right. Here is the file . Thanks again! ItsOkayImHere (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of Elongate article

Hi all! I am requesting some support on this article:

A quick informal overview of the subject: Elongate is a company that has issued a cryptocurrency. It uses the funds raised to conduct philanthropic activities.

A brief backstory: I initially submitted but it was rejected because there was already an existing draft on the subject. "Elongate" vs "ELONGATE". So, I took over editing the very poor-quality entry at "Elongate" and overhauled it.

I have reviewed GNG and the overall notability guidelines. In order to ensure that I met sufficient levels of notability for inclusion in WP, I looked towards existing articles in the same area of interest for guidance on what might be required to sum up to sufficient notability. This includes articles on DogeCoin, Shiba Inu, etc. In particular, I looked to the published article here: SafeMoon is of particular relevance for comparison, as the organization was formed at a similar time, their cryptocurrency was issued at a similar time, and have risen to nearly identical levels of notability and reliable secondary coverage. In fact, it appears to me that the rejected "Elongate" article has more coverage and depth that the published "SafeMoon" article.

I reached out on the IRC for assistance, but was a bit disheartened at the emotional response I received, saying all entries in the "crypto" space are "Garbage". I hope that personal attitudes of reviewers towards the area of interest don't color the assessment of whether a topic is notable. Certainly, a film buff might think the subject of an Adam Sandler movie is garbage, but it's irrelevant to measuring the notability :)

I'm hoping that some of you more knowledgeable on the area of interest can provide some expertise on this, as I think much of the effort so far has been from those not versed in crypto.

If possible, I'd like some analysis and specific feedback on how to reckon the notability of the published safemoon article with this rejection. Is there specific milestones or a particular missing piece that can be sourced? Thanks for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanderxander (talkcontribs) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EOS.IO#Requested move 7 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niche cryptocurrency industry difficult to get content approved

Hi, I posted on teahouse and was referenced here for help.

I am trying to get a draft approved for a cryptocurrency project and the feedback that I got is that it does not have reliable sources. I linked to niche crypto sources and even a mainstram one (Nasdaq) that goes in depth about the information I am posting. I then looked through the list of reliable sources and aside from coindesk (which is flagged red) the other sources are not listed. My question is, how can it be possible to provide reliable 3rd party sources when the industry itself is not recognized here for submitting reliable sources? There are a few more mainstream articles like for example, Yahoo but those are reposts of originals on crypto media sources.

For reference, this is the Draft:Pontem Network

Any help would be appreciated. I do see some cryptocurrency projects being approved so there must be a way forward.

Blockfanatic (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)BlockfanaticReply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Notability (cryptocurrencies). JBchrch talk 22:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chainlink request review

Hello editors! I'm A at Chainlink and I recently made a request over at the Chainlink (blockchain) Talk page. I was hoping one of you might be interested in taking a look at it. Thanks in advance! A at Chainlink (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Web 3.0 redirect up for discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10 § XFDC0. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review suggested changes to existing article

Hi there,

Declaring my conflict of interest, as I work for :) A few weeks ago I made some suggestions for improvements to the page, which is current flagged as an article that needs additional citations for verification (and my suggestions include a range of quality sources, at least as far as I understand the guidelines). As I work for, I made those suggestions in's Talk page, and declared my conflict of interest. I totally understand if it's just a matter of the volunteers who are monitoring that page not having gotten around to reviewing my suggestions yet - and I'm fine to keep waiting! That being said, I'm bringing it up here in the hopes of attracting attention from relevant community members who may want to take a look. Many thanks!

(GS for Bitcoincom (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Seeking help with Chainlink article

Hi editors, A at Chainlink here again. I'm a COI editor and I had another request I made over at the Chainlink Talk page that I've been hoping to get implemented. I was working with Hocus00 but I haven't heard back from them recently. Is there anyone here who could give me a hand? A at Chainlink (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chainlink request

Hello editors! A at Chainlink here again. Editors have been so helpful and have answered all my requests every time I've posted here, so I thought I would ask for help here again. There are a few details on the Chainlink I was hoping to change. I put these small requests into one larger post over at the Chainlink Talk page. I was hoping one of you might be willing to take a look at it. Thanks in advance! A at Chainlink (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:A7 and cryptocurrencies

Inviting this Wikiproject to a discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and cryptocurrencies. Singularity42 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Senior Wikipedia editors frequently reject CoinDesk as being a reliable source. I feel like CoinDesk maintains journalistic integrity, and also has some of the best investigative pieces in the crypto/Web3 space. Often, other outlets like CNBC simply repackage CoinDesk articles as their own. Is there anything that can be done about this? Satoshi (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just revived this article from the AfD boneyard for pretty obvious reasons - Celsius Network. References: [4][5][6] Help improving this would be appreciated. - Fuzheado | Talk 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed improving the NFT article quality

The NFT article needs a lot of work to disband misconceptions and improve overall quality. This is a crucial article, so we should give it the desired attention. Volkye (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of stablecoins

A discussion is taking place at Talk:List of Stablecoins on whether or not this article should exist and/or should be merged with stablecoins.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check out my new article on Nigeria

Check out my new article Cryptocurrency in Nigeria.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grayscale draft suggestions?

Hi editors, I'm Ben and I work for Grayscale Investments. I was hoping to publish an article about my company on Wikipedia. I got rejected quickly in the Articles for Creation queue and was hoping someone here might be able to offer some pointers for improving the draft enough to be considered for publication. I uploaded the draft here in hopes that the reviewing editor from AfC might offer some tips but they have elected not to. If anyone here is able to offer some tips to improve this enough to be resubmitted through Articles for Creation, I'd really appreciate it! BenViagas (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]