Editorial policy

Most of the crypto ETF content on the open web is either an American article that does not apply to a British reader, or a page assembled to rank rather than to inform. This document sets out how we try to be neither.

Who writes this

cryptoetf.uk is an independent research site. We are not a broker, a fund manager, an adviser or an introducer, we hold no client money or assets, and we are not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

We do not publish invented author bylines. Where a page contains an opinion — and several do — it is the view of the desk, clearly marked as a view rather than presented as a fact, and it sits alongside the evidence it is drawn from so you can disagree with it.

Sourcing standards

We work from primary documents wherever they exist, in this order of preference:

1. Regulator publications — FCA policy statements and press releases, SEC orders and filings, HMRC guidance
2. Issuer documents — prospectuses, key information documents, factsheets, Form 10-K and 10-Q filings
3. Exchange and venue publications — listing notices, market data
4. Established trade press, where a primary document is not public

Every figure on this site carries a date, because in this market a stale number is more damaging than no number. Fund sizes, fees and product availability all move, and several of the fees quoted across these pages are introductory rates with stated or open-ended end dates. Where we give a figure we also tell you when it was true.

Where a figure should be identical across two pages — a fee, a fund size, a regulatory date — it is drawn from a single shared source file so it cannot drift out of alignment.

What we do with gaps

This is the part we would most want you to hold us to.

When we cannot verify a number to a standard we are comfortable with, we leave the cell empty and say why. There are visible gaps in the tables on this site — individual XRP fund fees, several UK-listed ETN charges, the expense ratios on some US crypto equity funds. Those gaps are deliberate. Filling them with a plausible-looking estimate would make the tables look more complete and make the site less useful.

The same applies to lists. We do not publish a list of Innovative Finance ISA providers accepting crypto ETNs, because we could not verify one — and a wrong list in that area sends people to open the wrong account.

Commercial links

This site carries commercial links and they pay for the research. We think you are entitled to know exactly how that works.

• Every commercial link is marked as such at the point where it appears.
• All external links, commercial or not, carry rel="nofollow"; commercial ones additionally carry rel="sponsored".
• A commercial relationship does not affect what we write about fees, structure, regulatory status or risk. The fee tables, the structural criticism and the warnings read the same either way.
• We do not publish paid placements dressed as editorial, ranked lists sold by position, or reviews written to a client brief.
• Where we hold a view that is unhelpful to a commercial partner — and several pages on this site do — we publish it.

What we will not publish

A short list, and each item is here because the alternative is common in this sector.

Price predictions. Not for bitcoin, not for anything. Nobody knows, and publishing a number gives an impression of knowledge that does not exist.

Approval forecasts presented as analysis. A great deal of crypto ETF coverage consists of reprinting prediction-market odds with a confident headline. A betting price is not a forecast produced by anyone with information.

Performance-based fund rankings. Funds holding the same asset in the same structure differ in return only by their costs. Ranking them on past performance launders a fee difference into something that looks like skill. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future events.

Personal recommendations. We are not authorised to advise and we do not try. We set out criteria and evidence; the decision is yours or your adviser's.

Urgency. No countdowns, no limited windows, no language designed to make you act before you have finished thinking. If a page on this site ever makes you feel you need to move in a hurry, we have made a mistake and we would like to know.

The rules we write under

Because this site links through to places where cryptoassets can be bought, we treat its content as falling within the UK financial promotion regime and write accordingly. In practice that means:

• The FCA's prescribed risk warning appears in a bordered box that stays visible on every page as you scroll, at a size and contrast matching the surrounding text.
• We do not describe any account-opening, verification or investment process as being quicker or less demanding than it is. UK customers complete an appropriateness assessment and first-time investors wait through a 24-hour cooling-off period, and any wording that glossed over that would be misleading.
• We do not attach reassurance adjectives to products in place of evidence. Where a control exists we name the control and the figure behind it.
• We do not use unevidenced superlatives. Where we make a comparative claim we attach the metric and the source.
• We do not use incentive or payout-as-inducement framing, and we do not run a customer-facing referral scheme in any form.
• We do not imply a guaranteed or likely financial outcome, directly or indirectly.
• We do not use imagery whose visual message is growth or profit — no rising arrows over ascending charts, which is why two images supplied for this site were not used.
• We do not publish live percentage price-change tickers.
• We do not use emojis.

Corrections

If something on this site is wrong, we want to fix it rather than defend it. Email contact@cryptoetf.uk with the page and what you believe is incorrect. We will check it against the primary source and correct it if you are right.

Research across the site was last reviewed end to end on 14 September 2026. Individual pages carry their own review date at the top.