About CryptoSignals.Guide

The research desk

CryptoSignals.Guide is run by a small editorial team of traders and analysts who publish collectively as the Research Desk. We write as "we" on purpose: every review is the product of shared logs, second checks and internal argument, not one person's hot take. What we don't do is invent friendly faces — you won't find stock-photo "experts" with fabricated résumés here, because a site built on verifying claims can't start by faking its own.

The desk's background is practical: years of trading spot and derivatives on the major exchanges, getting burned by a couple of VIP groups along the way, and eventually deciding that the niche needed what every other consumer category already has — a reviewer who actually buys the product.

What we cover

Everything that sells a trade idea or executes one: Telegram and Discord signal groups, automation bots like Cornix and 3Commas, exchange copy trading, TradingView indicator suites, analytics platforms, and AI signal services. As of this update that's 51 standalone reviews, the ranked shortlist, a public accuracy tracker comparing claimed and counted win rates, and a scam warning hub for the operations that shouldn't be reviewed so much as reported.

We cover the industry's ugly side on the same footing as its useful side. When a service can't be verified, its page says so; when a big-name channel's marketing number fails an independent count, the gap goes in the tracker, not in a footnote.

How we work

The short version: subscriptions bought at public prices with our own money, every published call logged with a timestamp before its outcome is known, fees and slippage deducted, 90-day scoring windows, and fixed score weights that put verified performance (35%) and transparency (25%) ahead of everything else. The long version, including how we grade entry zones and what happens to deleted posts, lives in how we test — the most-linked page we own, deliberately.

Two working principles follow from that setup. First, we'd rather publish "we couldn't verify this" than a confident paragraph built on a provider's own marketing — several pages on this site say exactly that, in those words. Second, no score here goes above 9 out of 10, because in all the calls we've logged nobody has earned one. If that ever changes, the provider that does it will have a public, loss-inclusive record to show for it — not a bigger ad budget.

Editorial independence

No provider can buy a score, a placement, or a removal. Providers don't see drafts. Press releases go where they belong. When a service disputes a number, the dispute is resolved against our logs — the standing right of reply requires a full trade record, not a screenshot of a good week. The rankings reflect this: several top-scoring services have no commercial relationship with us at all, and some of the most aggressive affiliate payers in the niche sit at the bottom of our index with warning boxes on their reviews.

How the site makes money

Marked affiliate links and clearly labeled sponsored placements — that's the whole model. If you subscribe to a service or open an exchange account through some links here, we may earn a commission at no cost to you. Two hard rules keep that honest: commissions never touch scores (the weights are public and fixed), and high-risk services never get affiliate links regardless of what they'd pay. The full policy, in FTC-shaped detail, is in our disclaimer and disclosure.

You can audit the incentive structure yourself: compare the affiliate-heavy services in the niche with our tracker and rankings. If money moved our numbers, the correlation would show.

Talk to us

Corrections, tips about a provider, a dispute over a tracked figure, or a partnership inquiry (which, to repeat, buys distribution — never a score): [email protected]. Details on what to include and how fast we respond are on the contact page. If you're new here and just want to learn the ropes before following anyone's calls, start with the learning center.