Guidelines
General
Cyrator is a platform for analytical discussion and information sharing in the crypto space. Posts should be made with the intention of contributing to informed and meaningful discussions. Our community guidelines are subject to change as our platform evolves, and we welcome feedback from our analysts on how we can improve our policies and guidelines to better serve the needs of the community.
Shilling
Prohibited behavior: Shilling, which is defined as promoting a cryptocurrency project without disclosing conflicts of interest or posting messages with the sole intention of pumping the token, is strictly prohibited on our platform.
Ethical conduct: Analysts are expected to act ethically and disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence their reviews or analysis. This includes ownership of any tokens or holdings in the projects they review.
Focus on fundamentals: Our goal is to promote research and analysis based on fundamentals, not just hype or speculation. Analysts are encouraged to provide in-depth, objective, and critical analysis of projects, focusing on their underlying technology, business model, team, and other relevant factors.
Penalty for violations: Analysts who engage in shilling or other prohibited behavior will have their accounts blocked, and all their pending points and rewards will be revoked. Additionally, they may be subject to further penalties, including but not limited to fines or legal action, as determined by the platform's management.
Providing Financial Advice
It is important to maintain impartiality and objectivity when reviewing a blockchain project, and giving financial advice such as advising people to "hodl" or buy tokens is not appropriate in a review.
General Guidelines for Writing Reviews
Reviews should be rated based on how the project compares to other projects in the market in the specific category you're reviewing. If the project is similar to others in the market, it gets a 3-star rating. 5 Stars should be reserved for projects that are best in class and 1 stars should be reserved for projects that engage in deceptive practices.
The content of the review should focus on the arguments that support your rating. Explain what stands out from the crowd, whether it's good or bad. For example, if a project gets a 5 star review in marketing because of a fantastic intro video and transparent analytics then mention those items. There's no need to mention lots of other items where the project simply meets industry standards. The goal is to give the reader the most important information es clearly as possible.
General explanations on a project, like how the technology works for example, are not the most important part of a review and should only be included if necessary. If everyone would explain basic infos in their reviews, the reviews would become very repetitive and boring to read.
If possible, supply source material with your reviews, like screenshots, links and quotes.
You should also keep updating your reviews if you have important new information about a project. Users are encouraged to provide feedback on reviews via the comments and analysts are encouraged to incorporate that feedback in their reviews.
To ensure that our reviews are objective and comparable to those of other analysts, we ask that reviewers keep their ratings to each specific category, without letting their rating be influenced by factors outside of that category. For example, if a project has great marketing but poor tokenomics, the reviewer should rate the project 5 stars in marketing and 1 star in tokenomics. By separating reviews into categories, it allows analysts to focus on their areas of expertise and it makes it easier to compare the reviews of different analysts.
AI can be used to assist in writing reviews, including translation, and can be used to help better understand a project or the technology a project uses. However, it is not acceptable to use AI to write reviews without any genuine input. Cyrator reviews reflect YOUR opinion, and while AI can be used to help formulate it better, the review should be written by you. We can detect reviews that are purely generated by AI and will remove both the review and the analyst's access to the platform.
Examples of great reviews:
This review is very short, to the point and gives you exactly what you need to know.
This review provides very valuable information, exactly for what everyone wants to know. I great buy opportunity for a top project, supported by screenshots and source materials.
This review includes everything necessary in a very concise and easy to read Micro Review. Starts with explaining the score, comparison to other industry players, key points and progress and the challenges the project faces.
This review is short and discusses the idea in the context of the whole industry, rather than explaining it. It's also supported with personal opinions and critical viewpoints.
Last updated
