Corrections & feedback.

Email corrections@cryptopropfirmmatch.com with the URL of the page, the specific claim you believe is wrong, and any supporting evidence. We read every submission. Mark the email subject “Correction request” so it routes to the editorial desk rather than commercial inquiries.

If the issue is time-sensitive (an active payout dispute, a rule change that affects ongoing challenges), say so in the subject line and we’ll prioritize the review.

We acknowledge correction requests within 72 hours. We resolve straightforward factual corrections (typo, mis-stated spec, out-of-date last-verified date) within 7 days of acknowledgement. Editorial-judgment disputes (a request to revise a rating, soften a Scam Watch entry, or remove a critical paragraph) take longer because they require re-running the verification protocol on the relevant claim — typically 14 to 30 days, depending on whether new primary evidence has emerged.

We revise factual errors as soon as evidence supports the revision. We update specifications (account sizes, profit splits, payout SLAs, drawdown rules) whenever a firm publishes a change and we verify it. We stamp every revised page with a new last-updated date and, for material factual changes, note the correction at the bottom of the page.

We do not remove an editorial judgment because a firm disagrees with it. We do not remove a Scam Watch entry because the firm requested removal, paid affiliate commission, or threatened legal action. We do publish a resolution when the documented issue underlying a Scam Watch entry is verifiably fixed — that requires either a firm-issued public statement addressing the documented incidents or independent verification that the pattern has not recurred for the relevant window (typically 60 days for ongoing advisories, longer for systemic issues).

A firm we’ve reviewed critically — whether on a regular review page, a comparison, or a Scam Watch entry — may submit a right-of-reply statement. We will publish the statement in full, alongside our editorial judgement, if (a) the statement is signed by a named representative of the firm with a verifiable identity, and (b) the statement does not require us to retract a documented claim. The reader sees both sides; we don’t mediate the dispute by editing the firm’s reply.

If a firm’s reply includes a documented counter-claim that the original report missed, we re-run our verification protocol and update the page accordingly.

Readers who think a firm we covered well deserves harsher treatment (or vice versa) can submit the same way: email corrections@cryptopropfirmmatch.com with the URL, the specific claim, and the evidence. We weight reader submissions the same way we weight any third-party report: by the strength of the documentation, not by the volume of complaints.

• We do not remove negative reviews from our moderation queue because a firm complained.
• We do not accept payment to remove, soften, or delay critical coverage.
• We do not honour takedown requests that fail to identify a specific factual error.
• We do not negotiate the rating in exchange for affiliate commission.