A crypto exchange review can help readers compare fees, security and access to GBP deposits. But when you earn a commission from sign-ups or trades, the same article may also be advertising or a financial promotion. A useful review needs more than a convincing draft: it needs reliable evidence, clear commercial disclosure and a decision about whether it can lawfully be published.
This checklist is for UK-facing creators and publishers who use affiliate links or other incentives to promote crypto services. It is an editorial process, not legal advice. If you cannot establish the applicable rules and a lawful route for a promotion, pause publication and obtain specialist advice.
Start with a promotion check, not an AI draft
Before drafting, identify what you are promoting, who can see it and how you are paid. A comparison article, video description, social post or email may invite someone to engage in crypto activity even if it also contains educational material. Do not assume that calling a piece a review, or publishing it from outside the UK, removes it from the UK regime.
Once you have considered those questions, a general marketing tool can help with the editorial work. For example, https://www.ohlas.uk/ is a workspace that accepts briefs and documents and offers feedback on copy against a stated goal and audience. You could use it to flag unclear language in a draft; it does not verify an exchange, determine legality or approve a financial promotion.
Check the FCA’s guidance on Cryptoasset financial promotions and fiat-to-crypto on/off ramp services before deciding how to proceed. It explains the UK regime’s scope and four lawful communication routes. Depending on the circumstances, these include communication by an authorised person, approval by an appropriately permitted authorised firm, or a conditional exemption for communications by or on behalf of an MLR-registered cryptoasset business; another applicable exemption may also provide a route. Do not treat these options as interchangeable or assume one applies without checking its conditions.
In particular, a partner’s access to a registered provider’s service does not automatically make promotions on that partner’s own website, app or social account lawful. Record the proposed route, the parties involved and the basis for relying on it. Where approval or another arrangement is needed, confirm its scope and conditions with the relevant parties before publishing. A platform’s marketing team saying “this is fine” is not a substitute for establishing the route.
Build a dated evidence pack for every platform comparison
Create a source record before writing claims about an exchange. Save the relevant terms, fee pages, product descriptions and risk information, together with the date accessed and the UK customer eligibility conditions. A claim that was correct last month can become misleading after a fee change, product restriction or change in available payment methods.
For each material claim, record the exact wording you intend to use, its source and any qualification. If you say that GBP deposits are available, check which deposit methods UK customers can actually use, whether charges or limits apply and whether the feature is currently offered to new customers. A global product page alone may not establish the UK position.
Use the same discipline for costs. Trading fees, spreads, deposit fees and withdrawal charges describe different things. A headline trading rate may apply only to high-volume customers or a particular order type. Explain the conditions rather than presenting the lowest available figure as a typical cost. If a provider does not give you enough information to make a fair comparison, leave the claim out or state the limitation clearly.
Security deserves particular care. Separate a provider’s stated controls from independently established outcomes: an exchange saying it uses cold storage does not prove that every customer’s assets are safe. Check what the provider says about custody, account protection and withdrawals, and avoid turning those features into a guarantee against hacking, insolvency or loss. Where relevant, check the provider’s regulatory status using official sources and describe precisely what that status covers; registration is not a blanket endorsement of a platform or its products.
Keep a simple claim log with an owner and a next-review date. For a comparison of several exchanges, apply the same criteria to each one. Note where an entry is based on the provider’s own statement, a current fee schedule or your own documented test. That distinction helps readers understand both the evidence and its limits.
Separate verifiable features from persuasion and return claims
Mark up the draft sentence by sentence. A factual statement such as “the platform lists this withdrawal method” should have a current source. A judgement such as “easy for beginners” needs an explanation of the criteria used: for example, whether the fee display is understandable and whether account recovery instructions are accessible. Neither should be presented as universal if your assessment is limited.
Be especially cautious with phrases such as “safe returns”, “guaranteed yield” or “risk-free staking”. Crypto prices and returns can change, and a product may expose users to platform, custody or other risks. A historical rate, a promotional reward and a projected return are not the same thing. If you cannot substantiate a claim and explain the material conditions and risks alongside it, remove it rather than asking an AI tool to make it sound more persuasive.
Apply the same scrutiny to urgency. A countdown, limited-time bonus or prominent call to action can put pressure on a reader to act before understanding the product. Check the current FCA requirements that apply to the particular promotion, including relevant risk warnings and restrictions, rather than assuming a short warning at the end cures an otherwise misleading presentation. Required wording and presentation should be checked against current rules and the specific arrangement.
Review the surrounding material too: the headline, thumbnail, comparison badges, buttons and social captions may be encountered without the full article. A balanced paragraph cannot necessarily correct a misleading headline that promises quick profits. Make sure the overall impression is consistent with the evidence and does not downplay risk.
Disclose affiliate relationships without implying that disclosure makes a promotion lawful
Readers should be able to recognise advertising before they engage with it. The ASA’s Online Affiliate Marketing guidance explains practical identification under the CAP Code, including the use of upfront labels and the distinction between wholly promotional and mixed editorial content.
For a wholly promotional review, put a clear label such as “Ad” prominently at the start. In mixed content, identify affiliate advertising clearly where it appears, including relevant links or sections, so that a reader does not have to reach the footer to discover the commercial relationship. An explanation such as “we may earn a commission if you sign up” can provide useful detail, but an ambiguous or buried commission statement should not be relied on as the sole disclosure.
Check every format separately. A label visible at the top of an article may not appear when a link is shared in a social post, embedded in a newsletter or placed in a video description. Review the actual published placement on mobile as well as desktop. If a comparison ranks commission-paying partners, explain the relationship and use defensible selection criteria; do not imply that a paid position is an independent result if it is not.
Disclosure and financial-promotion compliance are separate checks. An “Ad” label helps identify advertising; it does not provide authorisation, approval or an exemption. Likewise, establishing a lawful communication route does not remove the need for clear advertising disclosure or accurate claims.
Keep human sign-off between AI feedback and publication
AI can be useful for finding inconsistent terminology, identifying passages that need support or suggesting questions a beginner might ask. Give it a bounded task: compare the draft with supplied source material, list claims that appear unsupported and identify wording that could be misunderstood. Ask it to distinguish an explicit source statement from an inference, then check its output against the original documents.
Human oversight must be more than clicking “accept”. https://www.ohlas.uk/about states OhlasAi’s principle that users review and adjust AI recommendations and make the final decision. In this workflow, assign a named editor to resolve each flagged claim, confirm source dates and escalate uncertainty about promotion rules. The tool’s feedback is not a compliance opinion, and a polished answer is not evidence that a claim is true.
A practical review record can include the draft version, evidence pack, unresolved questions, the person responsible for each fix and the final decision. If an affiliate manager supplies approved-looking copy, ask what it covers and whether it is applicable to your channel and intended audience; do not assume that permission to use copy settles every regulatory question. Where an authorised approver is involved, follow the actual approval conditions and escalation process.
Before uploading material to any service, check that you are allowed to share it and that the workspace is appropriate for the information involved. Remove customer identifiers, account details, credentials and unnecessary commercially sensitive information. Never upload seed phrases or private keys for an editorial review.
Use a final publication gate and a review schedule
Before anything goes live, have the responsible editor check the complete reader journey, not just the article body. Open the page as a reader would, follow each link and confirm that the destination, offer, dates and disclosures match the approved material. Pause if a destination has changed or a key claim no longer has current support.
- Promotion route: Is the applicable route documented, with any required approval or conditions confirmed for this content and channel?
- Evidence: Does every material fee, feature, eligibility and performance claim have a dated source and the necessary qualifications?
- Presentation: Are advertising labels prominent, risk information appropriately presented and calls to action consistent with the rules and evidence?
- Accountability: Has a named person checked the final version and resolved or escalated outstanding questions?
- Destinations: Do affiliate links lead to the intended current offer, without misleading redirects or mismatched terms?
Schedule a review based on how quickly the content could become stale. Fees, promotions, UK availability and product terms can change independently of your publishing calendar, so also recheck after a provider announces a change or a reader reports a problem. Keep the previous version and note what changed, when and why.
If a claim cannot be verified, an offer expires or the basis for publication is uncertain, remove the affected link or take the content offline while you investigate. A useful affiliate review is one that remains fair and understandable after the commission link is taken away—not one that simply persuades a reader to click.
