Review Methodology
Review standards
This Review Methodology explains how Event Trading Hub evaluates prediction-market and event-contract platforms, how review data is collected, how updates are handled, and how affiliate relationships would be disclosed if they appear.
Last updated: July 3, 2026
How Platform Reviews Are Scored
Event Trading Hub reviews do not use a single hidden score. A platform can be strong for one reader and weak for another depending on location, funding method, regulation, market category, liquidity, fees, and risk tolerance.
Each review explains the platform’s best fit, who should be cautious, what was checked, what remains partial, and which official sources support the claims. When a field cannot be verified, the review should say that directly.
Review Criteria
Beginner Friendliness
How clear the account flow, market pages, order tickets, fees, rules, support materials, and risk warnings are for someone new to event contracts.
Fees
Whether fee claims are visible, current, category-specific where needed, and checked against official fee pages or help-center material.
Liquidity
Whether a platform has usable market depth for the events a reader is likely to care about, without implying that every market is easy to enter or exit.
Market Variety
Which event categories appear on the platform, how broad the catalog is, and whether the review distinguishes live categories from occasional examples.
Regulation
Regulatory status, entity context, no-action or exchange status, and legal caveats are described carefully and not treated as a blanket safety claim.
Availability
Location, eligibility, age, account, product, and market restrictions are treated as user-specific checks rather than universal access claims.
Funding And Withdrawals
Deposit and withdrawal rails, holds, provider costs, crypto-network risk, minimums, and processing caveats are checked where official sources allow.
Transparency
Reviews look for clear public documentation, market rules, source information, fee explanations, help-center coverage, and update visibility.
Market Rules
Market wording, rule summaries, settlement sources, deadlines, and edge cases are more important than the casual market headline.
Resolution Process
The review checks how outcomes are determined, where disputes or delays can occur, and whether a reader can find the resolution source before trading.
Risk
Risk coverage includes trading loss, liquidity, spreads, rule ambiguity, settlement timing, funding mistakes, access changes, and platform-specific operational risk.
How Data Is Collected
Review data is collected from official platform pages, help-center articles, terms, fee pages, market rule pages, regulator materials, archived market examples, and local source notes created during research passes.
- Start with the current public page. The editor checks the live platform or official help page when it is available.
- Record the source status. A review should separate verified, partial, not found, and needs-recheck fields.
- Preserve context. Dates, jurisdiction, product scope, and market category are recorded when they affect the claim.
- Avoid unsupported expansion. A claim verified for one market, category, funding method, or region should not be expanded to every use case.
The Fact-Checking Policy explains source priority and correction handling in more detail.
How Often Reviews Are Updated
Reviews are updated when a material source changes, when a platform changes fees or rules, when a review is included in a planned editorial refresh, or when a reader reports a supported correction.
- High-impact fields such as fees, access, regulation, funding, withdrawals, and settlement rules should be rechecked before major rewrites.
- Static explanatory sections may be updated less often unless they contain a time-sensitive platform claim.
- Material changes should appear in the review’s update history or source-status language.
When A Platform Changes Fees Or Rules
If a platform changes fees, rules, funding options, access, market categories, or settlement process, the affected review should be updated after the change is verified from a strong source. If the change is reported but not yet verified, the page can mark the field as unclear or needing recheck.
A review should not keep an outdated fee, rule, or availability claim just because it appeared in an older article. The live source trail controls the current review wording.
Affiliate Relationships
Event Trading Hub does not add affiliate, referral, sponsored, or monetized links to reviews unless the operator explicitly approves the exact program and URL. If a relationship is added in the future, the review should disclose it clearly and preserve editorial separation.
- Disclosure should be visible to readers before or near the relevant link.
- Compensation should not determine the review verdict, ranking, or risk wording.
- Official source links should stay clean unless a specific approved affiliate or referral URL is intentionally used.
The Editorial Policy covers editorial independence and AI-use policy.
Review Methodology FAQ
Does Event Trading Hub fund accounts or place trades for every review?
No. Each review should state what was actually checked. Public documentation, interface evidence, and official sources must not be presented as funded-account testing when that testing did not occur.
Can an affiliate relationship change a review verdict?
No. Compensation must not determine rankings, fit assessments, or risk wording. Any approved relationship must be disclosed clearly and kept separate from editorial judgment.
What happens when a fee, rule, or availability claim becomes outdated?
The claim should be rechecked against a strong current source, corrected with its scope preserved, and reflected in the review’s update history when the change is material.
Why do reviews avoid one universal platform score?
A single score hides reader-specific trade-offs. Location, funding, regulation, market selection, liquidity, fees, and risk can make the same platform suitable for one reader and unsuitable for another.