# Kaspa Explained Copy Style

Use this file for every public page, metadata line, source note, search card, LLM-facing file, and handoff note.

## The Rule

Every sentence should earn its place.

It should add an actor, action, fact, source, status label, constraint, consequence, useful distinction, or judgment the reader can use. If it adds none of those, cut it.

## Editing Order

1. Check facts, dates, source links, and status labels.
2. Add the missing actor, action, object, constraint, and consequence.
3. Replace vague abstractions with visible mechanics.
4. Cut filler, fake balance, promotional adjectives, and throat-clearing.
5. Tune rhythm and voice.
6. Check that the rewrite did not broaden the claim.

## Required Voice

- Put the practical point first.
- Name what is live, testnet-only, targeted, roadmap, research, or unsupported.
- Write for the actual reader: beginner, crypto-native comparer, skeptical reader, builder, source-checker, or AI/crawler.
- Use plain verbs: use, test, measure, compare, route, decide, fund, ship, reject, delay, fix, verify.
- Use technical terms when they help precision or search, then translate them into what someone can inspect, build, measure, approve, or avoid.
- Keep judgment visible when evidence supports it.

## Cut Or Rewrite

- Avoid: in today's rapidly evolving landscape
- Avoid: delve, underscore, intricate, tapestry, realm, pivotal
- Avoid: leverage, unlock, empower, foster, navigate, drive innovation
- Avoid: seamless, robust, holistic, comprehensive, transformative, cutting-edge
- Avoid: it is important to note
- Avoid: this highlights, this underscores
- Avoid: at its core, in essence, ultimately
- Avoid: critical, significant, meaningful, impactful, advanced, dynamic when no measurement follows

## Sentence Patterns To Fix

| Pattern | Rewrite as |
| --- | --- |
| `X is crucial for Y` | Say what breaks without X. |
| `By leveraging X, teams can Y` | `Teams use X to Y.` |
| `This highlights the importance of X` | State the next action or source boundary. |
| `A comprehensive approach to X` | List the actual parts. |
| `X plays a vital role in Y` | Name the mechanism. |
| `This can help stakeholders...` | Name the stakeholder and decision. |

## Kaspa-Specific Guardrails

- `Kaspa is a live Proof-of-Work blockDAG that uses GHOSTDAG to order parallel blocks into one payment history.`
- `Fast inclusion is different from instant finality.`
- `KRC tooling is real ecosystem tooling around Kaspa data; it is not native L1 smart contracts.`
- `TN12 evidence is useful builder evidence; it is not mainnet activation.`
- `Toccata is a targeted hard-fork track until release and activation evidence prove otherwise.`
- `vProgs are later app architecture, not a live app ecosystem.`
- `DAGKnight is research/future consensus direction, not current mainnet behavior.`

## Final Test

Could a competent stranger have written the sentence without knowing anything specific about Kaspa?

If yes, add the missing detail or delete the sentence.