Last updated 22 July 2026
I’m Sophia Lopez, and this is the page that explains how I work, what you can expect from anything I publish, and the legal boilerplate that has to exist somewhere. I’ve tried to put it in one place instead of six, because nobody actually reads six.
What this is, and isn’t
Everything on this site is my own analysis, published for information and education. It is not financial, legal, tax or trading advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold anything. I am not your financial adviser, and I don’t know your situation, your jurisdiction, or how much loss you can actually absorb. Crypto specifically can go to zero, get frozen, get hacked, or get regulated out from under you, sometimes all in the same week. Verify anything material before you act on it, and get advice from someone licensed to give it if the decision is a big one.
How I decide what to write about
I go after questions where better evidence actually changes what an investor should think: liquidity, positioning, token supply, regulation, what a product really costs to use. Search demand can tell me a question is being asked. It doesn’t tell me the answer, and it never determines the conclusion.
How I check things before I publish
Every piece starts as a question I’m trying to answer, not a conclusion I already need to defend. From there:
I prioritize primary sources over secondary ones. Regulatory filings, protocol documentation, exchange data, court documents, first party datasets, that kind of thing. Reputable reporting is useful for context or for finding the primary source, but it’s not the primary source itself, and anonymous posts or promotional material don’t count as confirmation of anything.
Market data gets recorded with an actual timestamp, timezone, instrument and venue attached to it. I don’t quietly swap spot for futures, or a perpetual price for an index price, without saying so. Where I calculate something myself, a return, a ratio, an average, an annualized number, I redo the math from the underlying values rather than trusting whatever number I started with, and I check units, signs, missing data points and timezone boundaries while I’m at it.
For anything with real weight to it, a big number, a regulatory claim, I try to check it against a second independent source. Sometimes only one authoritative source exists. When that’s true, I say so in the piece instead of pretending there’s more corroboration than there is.
Before anything goes out, I sit with the strongest counter argument for a bit. Correlation isn’t causation, activity isn’t automatically demand, and a rising price isn’t proof that anything underneath it is sound. I’d rather publish the smaller, more defensible claim than the bigger one I can’t fully stand behind.
I use AI for research organization, transcription, drafting help and editing. I don’t use it as a source of fact, and I don’t publish invented data or charts that weren’t built from an identified dataset. Every number in a published piece has been checked by me against where it actually came from.
Where the numbers come from, and their limits
Charts and figures come labeled with what they’re measuring, what venue or provider they came from, and when the data was cut off. When something is an estimate, it’s called an estimate. When something is a proxy for the thing I actually want to measure, I say that it’s a proxy, not the thing itself. Some data is licensed or account gated and I can’t hand you the raw file, but I try to give you enough about the provider and method that you could reproduce the analysis yourself if you have access.
When I get something wrong
I post a correction under the relevant article whenever an error changes, or could reasonably change, how you’d read the evidence or the conclusion. That means the wrong figure, the wrong date, a bad calculation, a real conflict of interest I missed. The correction gets dated and explains what changed, and I don’t pin my mistake on a source unless the source is where the mistake actually originated. Spelling and formatting fixes don’t get a formal note. Adding genuinely new information to something that was already accurate is an update, not a correction, and I date those too rather than quietly rewriting the original thesis. If something is broken badly enough that I can’t fix it without it becoming a different article, I’ll retract it, and the URL will normally stay up with a clear retraction notice rather than disappearing.
Think I got something wrong? Tell me through the Contact page, with the article URL, the specific passage, and whatever evidence you’ve got. I read these myself.
Affiliate links and money
I don’t currently earn a commission from anything linked on this site, but that may change, and when it does, I’ll disclose it near the relevant link, not just once in fine print somewhere. When affiliate links do exist: they help pay for the data and tools this research actually needs, a company can’t buy a better conclusion or see a draft before it publishes, and a product with an affiliate relationship can still get a negative writeup or no recommendation at all. If I ever hold a token or have a paid relationship relevant to what I’m covering, I’ll say so in the piece itself, not bury it here.
Other people’s stuff
Short quotes with attribution and a link back are fine and welcome. Full republication or commercial reuse of my writing needs my permission first. Links out to other sites are for reference; I don’t control what happens on them, and using a third party service is on their terms, not mine.
For how the site itself handles your data as a visitor, that’s covered separately in the Privacy & Cookie Policy, since that one has its own legal requirements and needs to stand on its own.
Questions about any of this: Contact page.