Editorial policy

About Kaspa Explained

Kaspa arguments get noisy fast. This site slows them down: what runs, what is claimed, what the sources show, what still needs proof. No price targets. No exchange rumors.

Method

How the site works

Who

Kaspa Explained is independently maintained. It covers protocol status, tradeoffs, and context with source links.

How

Updates start from the strongest available source for the claim: code, releases, KIPs, research papers, protocol docs, and direct technical context before public summaries or social posts.

Why

The site exists to make Kaspa understandable without treating targeted upgrades, roadmap architecture, research, or community expectations as shipped network behavior.

Disclosure

Maintainer and conflicts

This site is independently maintained and Kaspa-focused. It has no official Kaspa role and provides no wallet, exchange, mining, price-target, or paid-promotion service.

The maintainer may hold KAS or use Kaspa-related tools. The site publishes editorial research. Status-sensitive claims should still be checked against primary sources before publication, investment, or production decisions.

Editorial policy

What the site does

Explain, then label status

Kaspa ideas are separated into what works now, what is targeted, what is roadmap, and what is research. That distinction keeps future architecture separate from shipped software.

Match sources to claims

Code, releases, KIPs, research papers, protocol documentation, and direct technical posts carry shipped-feature claims. Community articles, interviews, learning libraries, and X posts provide context but weaker evidence for activation status.

Keep crypto in its lane

The site does not argue that blockchains fix every database, payment, legal, privacy, or real-world verification problem. Kaspa is evaluated where people need one shared record without one operator controlling it.

Corrections

Corrections

If a status claim is wrong or stale, the correction should update both the visible page and the source list. When the correction changes the reader's decision, the page should say what changed.

Highest priority

Wrong live/roadmap/research status, wrong activation timing, broken source hierarchy, or wording that implies investment advice.

Normal priority

Broken links, unclear explanations, stale comparison wording, glossary gaps, missing cross-links, or diagrams that could be clearer.

Request path

Open a correction issue with the page URL, exact claim, better source, and wording that should change.

Disclosures

Boundaries

Next step

Where to go next

Use status for shipped-vs-roadmap claims, sources for evidence weight, or Start Here when the reader needs the full crypto foundation first.