Editorial Policy

The Markets Unplugged Education and Media Limited (RAK INC)

Last updated: 27 July 2026

Company details

Registered entity: The Markets Unplugged Education and Media Limited
Free zone: RAK Innovation City (RAK INC), Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
Support: contact@themarketsunplugged.com
Brands: The Markets Unplugged (site, memberships, research); Crypto Unplugged (podcast and YouTube channel)

1. Why this page exists

Most crypto research asks you to trust a conclusion. This page sets out the standards behind ours, so you can judge the process rather than the confidence with which it is delivered.

It covers who writes what, how the research is produced, how our tools are built and tested, what we refuse to claim, and what happens when we are wrong. It applies to the public library, the paid membership, the research tools, the podcast and the YouTube channel.

2. Who writes what

Every piece of research on this site is produced by one of two analysts, publishing under the names Doc and Oz. There is no content team, no ghostwriters and no syndicated filler.

Doc leads on-chain and alt-sector research and hosts the Crypto Unplugged podcast. Oz leads technical, macro and cycle analysis and fronts the chart work on the YouTube channel. Each analyst is credited on what they produce, and the frameworks each has built are attributed to them by name on our methodology page and our authors page.

Where a tool is a platform utility rather than one analyst's framework, it carries no personal byline. We would rather leave a byline off than attach one loosely.

3. Evidence before conclusion

Our research starts from data and works towards a view, not the other way round. We do not begin with a market opinion and assemble support for it.

Our tools are inputs to that process, not verdicts. A tool describes a condition; the analyst decides what, if anything, it means, and says so in their own words. We do not publish a reading as though it were an argument.

Where the evidence is mixed, we say it is mixed. Where the evidence has not changed, we say nothing has changed rather than manufacturing a weekly view to fill a slot.

4. How our tools are built

Our frameworks are judged against history, and we hold them to the same standards we would want applied to somebody else's.

Where a tool ranks a measure against its own past, the historical window it learns from is fixed and frozen, and recent years are deliberately held back so the tool is applied to data it was never fitted on. A framework tuned on the same history it is then judged against is not evidence, and we do not treat it as evidence.

Where a tool rests on a small number of historical episodes, it says so on screen rather than presenting a thin sample as a settled pattern. Where a measure cannot be produced on a given day, the tool discloses the gap rather than substituting an assumption for it.

5. What we test, and what happens when it fails

We test our frameworks against a fair comparison, not against a flattering one. A statistic that only looks good because the asset went up over the period is not a result, and we treat it as noise.

Where a claim of ours has failed that kind of testing, the claim is removed rather than softened. This has already cost us headline figures we had previously used, and we would rather lose the figure than keep a number we cannot defend.

The consequence is that some of our tools carry no performance claim at all. That is deliberate. A framework can be useful and honest without a number attached to it, and an unsupported number is worse than none.

6. What we will not publish

We will not publish an accuracy figure, a win rate or a hit rate that has not survived honest testing.

We will not present any tool as a buy or sell signal, a confirmed top or bottom, a price target, or a trading strategy with an expected return. Our tools describe conditions and they do not instruct.

We will not reproduce a current or historical tool reading as an illustrative example. An example becomes a claim the moment it is published, and a page that ages into a false claim is worse than no page.

We will not publish the internals of our frameworks, meaning the weights, thresholds and scoring logic. Those stay proprietary. What we publish instead is what each tool measures, what it outputs, and where it is weak, which is the part that lets you judge whether to rely on it.

7. Limits are published alongside capability

Every tool documented on our methodology page carries a plain statement of what it will not do. That includes blind spots we know about and have chosen not to hide: tools that read a level but not a turn, tools that are structurally weak at one end of their range, tools resting on a handful of historical episodes, and tools that cannot see a category of event by design.

A tool that only advertises its strengths is marketing. We would rather tell you where ours are thin.

8. Coverage and currency

Research is dated. Where our alt-sector work carries a name forward without fresh examination, that name is shown as carried forward rather than presented as re-confirmed, and the board carries the date it was last reviewed.

We publish a coverage note rather than implying that everything on a board was reviewed in the same pass. Silence about coverage is a way of overstating it, and we treat it as such.

9. Independence

No project, token issuer, protocol or foundation has ever paid us for coverage, and we have never acted as paid promoters. We do not accept payment to influence what we cover or the conclusions we reach.

Our analysts hold personal positions in digital assets, including assets we write about. That conflict is real, it is unavoidable for working analysts, and we disclose it rather than pretend otherwise. The full statement is on our disclosures page.

10. How we use AI

We use AI as a working tool, in the same way we use a charting platform or a spreadsheet. It helps with drafting, editing, structuring and checking, and it has been used in building parts of our research tooling.

It does not decide anything. Every claim it drafts is checked against what we have actually built and what we can actually evidence, and a great deal of what it produces gets corrected or thrown out before it reaches you. The analysis, the judgement and the market reads are ours. Nothing reaches this site without an analyst having produced the underlying work and approved the words.

We do not use AI to manufacture volume, and we do not use synthetic personas, AI-generated presenters or automated accounts. We have been offered tools built to do exactly that and turned them down. Publishing more is not the goal. Content produced to fill a slot is the opposite of what this platform is for.

11. Corrections

When we find an error in something we have published, we correct it. Our current practice is to update the page so that what is live is accurate.

Our legal and policy pages carry a "Last updated" date so you can see when they last changed. If you think something we have published is wrong, write to contact@themarketsunplugged.com and we will look at it. We would rather be corrected by a reader than leave an error standing.

12. Education, not advice

Everything we publish is educational. It is not financial, investment, legal or tax advice, not a personal recommendation, and not a solicitation to buy or sell. We are not licensed financial advisers.

Nothing we publish is tailored to your circumstances, your risk tolerance or your objectives. Digital assets are volatile and you can lose the entire value of an investment. See our disclosures page for the full statement.

13. Changes to this page

We may update this policy as our process changes. The "Last updated" date at the top shows when it last changed.

14. Contact

Questions, corrections or complaints about anything we have published: contact@themarketsunplugged.com