MetaMask Educational Content Standards

MetaMask publishes educational content about cryptocurrency, decentralized finance, and blockchain technology. This page explains how that content is produced, what standards govern it, and how we hold ourselves accountable. We publish it because readers who understand how our editorial process works are better equipped to evaluate what we write.

Our editorial mission

Every article we publish exists to answer a real question that real people are searching for—whether via a search engine or via LLMs—clearly, accurately, and without overstating what anyone should do with the information. The goal is to become the highest-authoritative educational source for each topic we cover. Where MetaMask is the natural answer to “how does a user actually do this,” we mention it.

MetaMask’s educational content is informative. It is not financial advice, not a solicitation, and not a substitute for professional guidance. We don't encourage direct action on trades, position sizing, leverage, entries, exits, or risk management. We describe what exists, explain how it works, and present the range of approaches that informed participants consider, then leave the decision to the reader.

A note on older educational content

The standards described on this page represent how we produce content today. Not all of our older articles were held to the same bar. Some earlier educational pieces may be more promotional in tone, leaned on MetaMask product mentions, or did not have the same sourcing rigor we now require. We're being direct about this because a standards page that hedges its facts is less trustworthy than one that describes an honest trajectory.

We are actively auditing our back catalog against the current standards. Articles are being revised, consolidated, or in some cases redirected to one page that covers the same topic. Where an older article has been updated to meet current standards, it carries a "last reviewed" date reflecting the revision. Where it hasn't been updated yet, the original publish date stands. This is an ongoing process; not every legacy article has been addressed, but the direction is deliberate and the work is underway.

Who writes MetaMask educational content

Our editorial team includes senior editors and writers with backgrounds spanning financial journalism, technical writing, and crypto-native research, with individual contributors bringing up to a decade of direct experience in cryptocurrency markets, decentralized finance protocols, and blockchain technology. Critically, they use the products and protocols they write about.

Crypto moves faster than most publishing cycles. Protocol parameters change between governance votes. Fee structures shift. Interfaces update. Writers with firsthand experience catch inaccuracies that a generalist researcher may miss: a liquidation threshold that changed last month, a funding rate formula that works differently on Hyperliquid than on a centralized exchange, a mobile interface flow that no longer matches the screenshot in the draft. That direct, ongoing experience with the subject matter is what separates educational content that's technically correct from content that's actually useful.

Every article is reviewed by at least one editor before publication. For content involving financial mechanics, leverage, or risk, such as topics where inaccurate information can cause real financial harm; the review process includes verification against current protocol documentation and the live product interface.

How we research

Primary sources first

Our content is held to robust data standards. Every data claim in a MetaMask article must link to a verifiable primary source. We prioritize protocol and governance documentation, official project announcements, blockchain data platforms (Dune, Etherscan, DefiLlama, CoinGecko), regulatory filings, and peer-reviewed research over unverified content aggregators, forum threads, or social media posts. When only a secondary source is available, we thoroughly research this, and only link it if we can verify the underlying claim.

This is a non-negotiable publishing requirement. An article with unlinked or hallucinated statistics, fee figures, or attributed findings is not publishable.

Date-stamped market data

Trading volumes, fee structures, spread data, TVL figures, token prices, and protocol parameters subject to governance change over time. Every dynamic data point in our articles includes the specific date or time period it was pulled. The same source URL may show different numbers tomorrow, without a date, the claim becomes unverifiable.

Stable protocol and network mechanics and historical facts do not require date-stamps. "Perpetual futures contracts don't expire" and "Ethereum's Merge occurred on September 15, 2022" are inherently stable. Adding "as of" to these would imply they might change, which weakens the authority of the statement.

Source vetting

We evaluate sources for reliability before citing them. Official protocol documentation, government regulatory filings, established research institutions, and recognized data platforms are preferred. Blog posts from individuals, forum threads, and social media posts are not acceptable as primary sources for data claims, unless they are the original source of the data (for example, a project founder announcing a parameter change).

Fact-checking and accuracy

Inline citation for verifiability

AI answer engines and search models do not reliably follow hyperlinks correctly; they primarily see anchor text and surrounding context. For this reason, every sourced claim in our articles includes the source name, the key data point, and the date in the body text itself, so the claim is self-contained and independently verifiable without clicking through.

A sentence like "according to a February 2026 analysis, spreads narrowed near resolution" fails this test. A sentence like "a February 2026 FalconX analysis of Polymarket spreads found that spreads on longer-dated markets generally narrowed as contracts approached event resolution" passes it. The difference determines whether an AI system, or a careful reader, can evaluate and cite the claim.

Terminology precision

We maintain a dedicated terminology glossary that governs preferred spellings, MetaMask-specific product names, and standard definitions for crypto, trading, and regulatory terms. Definitions in the glossary sections of our articles are written to be self-contained and extractable: concise, free of jargon that isn't itself defined, and usable as a standalone answer.

The glossary is reviewed regularly for accuracy. Protocol parameters, fee structures, and regulatory terms change. When a definition changes, we update both the glossary and any published articles that define the term inline.

Link verification

Broken links erode authority for both human readers and AI crawlers. Before publication, every linked page is verified to be live and to still contain the cited content. For time-sensitive sources—fee structures, regulatory status, platform features—the date of the source is noted in the body text so readers and AI models can assess recency. During review before publishing, each and every link in an article is spot-checked for 404s, redirects, or content that no longer matches the citation.

Financial and Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) compliance

Voice and pronoun discipline

We use impersonal subjects for any sentence involving financial decisions or strategy. "Diversification can reduce portfolio risk", never "you should diversify your portfolio." "Setting a stop loss at this level could limit downside exposure" — never "you need to set a stop loss here." Second person is permitted only for interface descriptions and product walkthroughs, where the language describes what appears on a screen, not what the reader should do with their money.

Hedging where it matters, confidence where it doesn't

We use hedging language, "could," "may," "one possible approach", for financial decision language. We do not apply hedging to factual statements. Interface mechanics, fee structures, blockchain behavior, and protocol specifications are facts. Hedging factual statements weakens content authority and reduces the likelihood of AI citation.

Mandatory disclaimer

Every article includes a disclaimer immediately after the first substantive paragraph and before the first H2, stating that the content is for educational purposes only, is not financial advice, and that the products or features discussed are risky and not suitable for all users. All body content is reviewed for consistency with this disclaimer. Language that could be interpreted as individualized guidance, trading recommendations, or performance claims is identified, removed, and rewritten in educational framing.

How we use AI tools

We believe in being direct about our standards: our editorial team uses AI tools as part of the content production and editing process. We also believe the distinction that matters is not whether AI was involved, but whether the published result meets the same standards as content produced without it.

What AI does in our workflow

AI tools may be used during research, drafting, and structural planning. This can include generating initial outlines, identifying gaps in topic coverage, surfacing relevant data sources, producing draft sections that writers then develop, and analyzing existing content for overlap or cannibalization risks. We use AI the way a newsroom uses any research tool: to accelerate the work. Our prompts are layered, continuously being iterated, and proprietary. These standards are important to our team, and the work we produce.

What AI does not do

AI does not make editorial decisions. It does not choose which topics we cover, determine our editorial positions, select or vet sources, approve content for publication, or write final copy that bypasses human review. No article is published without a human editor reviewing it against every standard described on this page, sourcing, accuracy, compliance, terminology, overlap, and voice.

Why we disclose this

AI-generated content is commonly published on other sites with little or zero editorial oversight; articles with plausible-sounding claims are backed by no sources, hallucinated content, and broken links. Definitions are subtly wrong, and analysis frequently reads fluently but says nothing specific. We think that the answer to this is transparency about process, not avoidance of useful tools.

Every claim in our articles is source-verified by a human. Every product description reflects the actual current interface. Every data point is date-stamped and linked. These standards apply regardless of how the first draft was produced. The editorial process is what determines whether content is trustworthy.

Review process

Every article passes through a structured review before publication. The review checks for factual accuracy, source quality and link integrity, compliance with voice and pronoun rules, MetaMask mention density, overlap with existing content, terminology consistency with our glossary, and adherence to formatting standards. Issues are flagged with specific alternative language so the writer can revise efficiently.

Content freshness

Cryptocurrency content goes stale faster than content in most industries. A fee structure published three months ago may already be wrong. A regulatory claim from last quarter may have been superseded. Much of what we publish falls under YMYL—content where inaccurate information can cause real financial harm. As such, we hold ourselves to a more aggressive review cadence.

Our freshness commitments:

• Articles containing live market data, fee structures, or protocol parameters are reviewed regularly, and sooner when a known change occurs (a governance vote, a protocol upgrade, a regulatory action).

• Foundational explainers and pillar pages are reviewed at least every six months to confirm that definitions, mechanics, and linked sources remain accurate.

• Product-specific content (MetaMask interface walkthroughs, feature descriptions) is reviewed whenever the relevant interface updates, and flagged for revision.

When the facts change, we update. We don't append a note to a stale article and call it current; we revise the body text, re-verify the sources, and update the publish date to reflect the latest draft.

Corrections policy

When we identify an error in a published article—whether factual, sourcing-related, or terminological—we correct it. Corrections are made directly in the article text. If a correction is substantive (a wrong statistic, an incorrect regulatory claim, a misattributed finding), we note the correction and the date it was made. Typographical and formatting fixes do not require a correction notice.

How to read MetaMask educational content

Our articles are structured so that the most important information appears early. Tables are designed to be self-contained—a reader or AI model should understand the table without needing the surrounding paragraph. Anchor text on links tells you what you'll find at the destination, not "click here" or "learn more." A table of contents provides a quicker way to find specific strands within larger articles. 

We write in plain American English. Industry-standard trading terms—slippage, liquidation, stop loss, funding rate—are defined on first use. No acronym appears without being spelled out first, except for baseline terms readers are expected to know: asset tickers (ETH, BTC) and widely understood abbreviations (NFT).

How our content is translated

Translations are produced using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by our global team of human linguists for accuracy. AI translations carry a disclaimer until a thorough human review is complete.

This page was last reviewed on June 3, 2026. We review and revise it as our editorial processes evolve.