Evidence before a recommendation.

Read our prediction market research standards, source hierarchy, comparison criteria and correction process, including how AI assists editorial work.

What our guides are

These are research guides built on primary documents and on first-hand use: catie Di Stefano has funded an account on each of our partner platforms with about $200, placed between 10 and 50 trades depending on the platform, and tested withdrawals. We compare exchange identity, product rules, fees, funding, withdrawal conditions and New York access information. If an item is not verified, we identify it rather than inferring an answer from another operator or product.

Which sources support a claim?

Regulator or court record

Used to establish what a regulator recorded, what a complaint alleges, or what a court ordered. These are different claims and are labelled separately.

Operator documentation

Used for the provider’s stated rules, fees and account processes. A help page is not evidence of withdrawal speed we personally observed.

Partner instructions

Used for supplied campaign headlines, referral routes and code requirements. We distinguish those instructions from independently verified full promotional terms.

Firsthand testing

Only claimed when a real test has been documented. Evidence should record the product, location, date, action, costs and outcome without exposing account or identity information.

How we compare platforms

We compare equivalent contract definitions and total costs where evidence supports that comparison. We do not turn a larger welcome reward into a quality score. A platform’s place in our directory is not a ranking. Exchange registration is not presented as a guarantee of New York access.

Our platform directory links to the individual research guides. The calculator explains a standard binary settlement using user-entered fees; it does not reproduce every provider’s fee system.

Who drafts and approves?

The editorial team uses AI-assisted research and drafting. Catie Di Stefano is the publisher. We do not apply a personal reviewer byline simply because a person owns the publication.

Dates and material changes

Source-check dates show when the documents were reviewed, not a promise of continuous monitoring. Event dates are kept separate from article dates. A material correction should explain what changed and why. Formatting changes do not justify presenting old reporting as newly researched.

Corrections and disputes

A useful correction report identifies the article URL, the disputed statement, a primary source and its relevant date. Our process is to check that evidence, amend supported errors and note material changes on the affected page. An operator’s disagreement does not automatically establish that reporting is wrong.

Commercial relationships

Qualifying activity through partner links may earn us a commission. Commercial relationships do not prove a product is suitable or legally available. Read our affiliate disclosure and each offer’s conditions.