Pig butchering scam
This article is of mid-importance to this and a few other WikiProjects. I’ve already discussed the following issues on those WikiProjects’ talk pages: its sentences use inconsistent British and American spellings. It’s already being nominated over at wp:AFIN#Pig butchering scam. I’m well aware that this group is believed to be semi-active. 2600 etc (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Binance article improvements
Hello Wikiproject Cryptocurrency! I have a request editors here may want to review. I have been making suggestions for the Binance article on its Talk page. Two editors in particular have put in a lot of work reviewing my requests. My latest request is still under discussion but seems to have stalled out and rather than continue to unduly lean on their efforts, I'm seeking additional voices as well. Please note I am a representative for Binance so I have a conflict of interest. This is why I make my suggestions on the Talk page and work through improvements via discussion. Happy to answer any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
COI edit request relevant to this project: Elliptic (company)
Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Elliptic (company) article. DrThneed (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
COI disclosure: Requesting review of RustChain (Proof-of-Antiquity blockchain) for notability
Hello WikiProject Cryptocurrency editors,
Per WP:COI, I am disclosing that I am the founder of Elyan Labs and creator of RustChain. I believe the project may meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on independent secondary sources, and I am requesting that an uninvolved editor review the sources and consider whether an article is warranted. I am not requesting that I write the article myself.
RustChain is a blockchain protocol using "Proof-of-Antiquity" consensus, which rewards miners based on verified vintage hardware rather than computational power. The native token (RTC) has no ICO and the network anchors to the Ergo blockchain.
Independent sources include:
- U.S. patent 10,579,974 (March 2020) — rapid transaction settlements in distributed digital asset networks
- American Press (Lake Charles, LA), May 10, 2022 — coverage of SEED Center business pitch competition win ($5,000 Technology Category)
- Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, May 3, 2022 — announcement of pitch competition results
- Ergo Platform official documentation — ecosystem listing
- OpenSSL — approved security patch (PR #30437, integer truncation fix in PowerPC AES-GCM, approved by two core maintainers with "approval: done" label)
- wolfSSL — POWER8 hardware AES acceleration contribution (PR #9932, CLA signed)
- NSA Ghidra — e200 VLE PowerPC language support contribution (PR #9036)
- Grokipedia (xAI) — 10+ encyclopedia pages covering RustChain, BoTTube, RAM Coffers, and the founder
- ToolPilot.ai — BoTTube platform review (7 reviews, 86% positive)
- Dev|Journal — syndicated article on Proof-of-Antiquity consensus mechanism
- Field Tech Academy (YouTube) — interview appearance (July 2024)
- MSS Miami 2025 — conference panelist on CISO roles in third-party threat response
The project has 177 GitHub stars, 160 forks, 65 contributors, and approved security patches in two of the most widely deployed cryptographic libraries (OpenSSL and wolfSSL).
I am happy to answer questions about sources or provide additional context. Thank you for your time. RustchainDev (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Most of the listed items would not generally satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement for independent secondary coverage under policies such as WP:SECONDARY, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. The key requirement is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources about the subject itself. Brief mentions, self-published material, technical contributions, or listings usually do not qualify. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Draft: Dragonfly Capital — looking for independent review
Hi all, relatively new to Wikipedia editing so apologies if I'm not following the right process here. Happy to be pointed in the right direction.
I've created a draft at Draft:Dragonfly Capital for the crypto venture capital firm Dragonfly. I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on my user page) so I'm posting here rather than submitting to AfC, where previous versions were declined for promotional tone — feedback I've tried to address in this rewrite. The firm has received significant independent coverage, most notably a Fortune feature by Leo Schwartz (February 2026) covering the firm's history, leadership, and Fund IV close during the crypto VC downturn. Additional sourcing includes Bloomberg, TechCrunch, Axios, The Block, and CoinDesk.
I recognize the draft likely still needs work. In particular, the firm's involvement in the Tornado Cash matter (DOJ scrutiny of a 2020 investment, is absent because I wasn't able to add it given my affiliation. Any independent editor willing to review, improve, or take over the draft would be greatly appreciated. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- If the article was rejected through the AfC process, unfortunately, there's nothing we can really do. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Sibshops. To clarify, I'm not asking to override the AfC decision. The previous versions were rightfully declined. This is a substantially different draft that I believe addresses those concerns, but given my COI I'd rather not resubmit it myself. I'm hoping an independent editor might be willing to review it and, if they think it meets notability and neutrality standards, either improve it or take it through AfC themselves. If this isn't the right venue for that kind of request, happy to be redirected. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hm.. I don't see this really as meeting notability criteria. A lot of the page covers funding which is generally not considered notable per WP:CORPTRIV. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Sibshops. I appreciate the feedback. I'd note that comparable crypto VC firm articles currently on Wikipedia like Polychain Capital, Pantera Capital, Ribbit Capital all cover similar fund-level detail. The Dragonfly draft is also supported by features (not just funding announcements). But I understand if you feel it still falls short. Do you have any specific additions that could make the difference in your view? MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Some of those example articles appear to have some coverage in mainstream independent sources, not just crypto-industry or finance coverage. For a crypto-related company article, I wouldn't use crypto-specific sources per WP:NCRYPTO.
- I would also trim routine funding material. Wikipedia is generally not interested in investment rounds by themselves per WP:CORPTRIV and WP:SERIESA. What would help more is significant independent coverage showing why Dragonfly itself is notable: for example, substantial reporting on its broader impact, controversies, influence on the industry, or other coverage that is about the firm as a subject rather than coverage of deals or fund announcements. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's really helpful, thank you! I'm going to work on revising the draft based on your feedback. Trimming the funding material, removing crypto-specific sources where possible, and adding coverage where Dragonfly is the subject. Will update the draft once I make those changes. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Updated the draft with your suggestions. Trimmed the funding stuff, swapped out most of the crypto-specific sources, and added two sections with mainstream sourcing where Dragonfly is actually the subject: the Alameda Research due diligence before the FTX collapse (Fortune, WSJ) and the Tornado Cash DOJ situation (CoinDesk, Inner City Press).
- Appreciate any feedback. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- There are still some issues:
- CoinDesk is WP:NCRYPTO, it should probably be removed.
- The WSJ articles don't focus on the company itself, a passing mention in the FTX articles can't be used to establish notability.
- Inner City Press may not be a reliable source.
- It's still missing coverage from mainstream sources, more than a passing mention. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- There are still some issues:
- That's really helpful, thank you! I'm going to work on revising the draft based on your feedback. Trimming the funding material, removing crypto-specific sources where possible, and adding coverage where Dragonfly is the subject. Will update the draft once I make those changes. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Sibshops. I appreciate the feedback. I'd note that comparable crypto VC firm articles currently on Wikipedia like Polychain Capital, Pantera Capital, Ribbit Capital all cover similar fund-level detail. The Dragonfly draft is also supported by features (not just funding announcements). But I understand if you feel it still falls short. Do you have any specific additions that could make the difference in your view? MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hm.. I don't see this really as meeting notability criteria. A lot of the page covers funding which is generally not considered notable per WP:CORPTRIV. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Sibshops. To clarify, I'm not asking to override the AfC decision. The previous versions were rightfully declined. This is a substantially different draft that I believe addresses those concerns, but given my COI I'd rather not resubmit it myself. I'm hoping an independent editor might be willing to review it and, if they think it meets notability and neutrality standards, either improve it or take it through AfC themselves. If this isn't the right venue for that kind of request, happy to be redirected. MilevaMeropeClement (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive
| Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive |  |
| June 2026 Backlog Drive:
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can sign up here. | |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Binance news
Hello editors, Binance made an announcement about trading US stocks, which was picked up by Reuters and Fortune, so I have made a proposal about it on the article's Talk page. Would anyone here be interested in reviewing it? Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)