Corrections

What gets recorded

What goes in: factual errors that could affect a reader's judgement, wording that misleads, and defects on a page that affect using it. Typos and layout adjustments that do not change meaning are not logged individually.

Each entry states three things: what changed, why, and the date. We do not delete published errors and pretend they never existed — the original wording stays in the record, so you can tell whether the version you read earlier was the wrong one.

The record

2026-09-05 · Experience claims and reference-rate validation

We re-checked every article in this round. First-hand accounts, interviews and reader cases with no record behind them became clearly labelled hypothetical examples or practical suggestions. An unverifiable fee-discount figure and sentence-length and money figures with no traceable source were removed. The rate tool now stops rather than showing a number when its data is stale or implausible; deviation from a reference is no longer called the full implicit trading cost. Public-page images now state what they establish. These edits do not confirm the legal, tax or product claims still awaiting verification.

2026-09-03 · The date on the AFSA warning was off by a day, and the link pointed elsewhere

What changed: three articles said AFSA published its warning about unlicensed digital asset platforms on 28 April 2026. The correct date is 29 April 2026. Separately, the source link we gave for that warning was AFSA's 「/warning/」 path, which in fact redirects to an unrelated warning about a music company's representative office. It now points to the page for this warning itself, with the date in the link text.

Why: a day looks trivial, but this warning is our time anchor for which platforms were named, and a wrong date leaves a reader who goes to check unable to match it up. The link was the worse problem: we keep telling readers to verify things themselves, and handed them an address that goes somewhere else. We now cite the version on the AIFC news site, because only that one carries the date beside the text; AFSA's own page has no date on it.

How we found it: while re-checking the figures in every article. The date appeared 8 times across the site and was internally consistent — but consistent is not the same as correct. Going to the primary source is what surfaced both the wrong day and the broken link. Following that thread, we re-ran all 35 source links across the site, checking not just whether they open but whether they still open onto the same page. That caught one more: the link to the eGov guidance on individual tax declarations now redirects to the eGov home page, and has been replaced with the corresponding page on the State Revenue Committee portal. The other 33 were fine.

2026-09-02 · We sent readers to the AFSA register and left out the other half

What changed: our method for confirming that a platform is licensed said only to search AFSA's public register. That is incomplete. AFSA's register covers firms inside the Astana International Financial Centre; since May 2026, platforms operating outside the centre are licensed and registered by the National Bank instead, on a separate list. The distinction is now spelled out, along with the point that failing to find a firm in AFSA's register does not by itself settle the question — you first have to establish which jurisdiction the firm claims to operate in.

Why: as written, a reader could conclude a compliant local firm was unlicensed simply because it was not in AFSA's register, or be brushed off by a platform saying "AFSA doesn't cover us." A verification method that is only half stated leads to wrong conclusions more readily than none at all. We found this while adding external citations across the site and checking each regulator's own pages line by line.

2026-09-02 · External sources added across every article

What changed: until now our articles cited almost no external sources, so readers had no way to check what we said. Each of the 14 articles now ends with the sources it draws on — 107 in total — pointing to regulators' own sites, primary legislation, the tax authority and public technical specifications, with a note on each saying which claim it supports. Every link was opened and checked in September 2026.

Why: a site that keeps telling readers to verify things themselves owes them the means to do it. We also do not cite exchange pages as evidence of fact — an exchange describing itself is not an independent source.

2026-09-02 · The rate tool named the wrong data source, and had stopped working

What changed: the currency comparison tool described its rates as European Central Bank reference data. That was wrong: the ECB does not publish a tenge reference rate at all, and the data source the tool relied on had moved and no longer returned KZT — so the tool was failing to a "rates unavailable" state rather than converting anything. The tool now uses a different public data source that does provide the tenge, and every description of the source on the page has been corrected: it is a third-party aggregated figure, refreshed once a day, not any central bank's official rate.

Why: two separate faults with one root. A tool that does not work is an inconvenience; a page stating a data source it does not actually use is a credibility problem, and on a site that keeps telling readers to check where numbers come from, it was the worse of the two.

2026-09-02 · Regulator's warning about unlicensed platforms was missing

What changed: two guides now carry AFSA's public warning of 29 April 2026 — that organising the circulation of digital assets in Kazakhstan without a licence is prohibited, that specific platforms were named, and that the regulator advises users to check the public register and to avoid transferring funds to entities of unclear status. The comparison guide previously said that people already using the global platform should simply keep using it; that has been rewritten to put the regulatory standing of the two entities on the table alongside the cost of moving.

Why: the original text was accurate on the narrow legal point — the licensing obligation sits on the platform, not on you — but it left out the regulator's own consumer warning while affirmatively recommending the unlicensed venue. On a page about regulation, in the jurisdiction the warning applies to, that omission mattered more than the point it got right.

2026-08-30 · Section covers implied the wrong thing

What changed: two of our early section cover images — one a line with nodes, one a set of uneven vertical bars — read visually as a price chart and a bar chart. Both were replaced with geometric motifs drawn from Central Asian textiles (continuous chevrons, an eight-pointed star lattice).

Why: a site about compliance and risk that illustrates itself with what looks like a rising price line is making a suggestion we do not want to make. That kind of suggestion is particularly inappropriate where money is concerned.

2026-08-30 · Wrong ordering on narrow screens

What changed: on the home page, the invite code card was ordered after the body buttons on narrow screens, so on a small phone the code was not visible without scrolling. Ordering is now specified explicitly so the card always precedes the buttons.

Why: the original used an ordering property that only applies to direct children of the grid, and the card sat inside another container — so that ordering never took effect. That was written without being verified.

2026-08-30 · A headline broke mid-word

What changed: a Chinese-language headline was being split by the browser in the middle of a phrase, with the highlight colour starting at the wrong character, so it read as broken. The headline was shortened and the key phrase set not to wrap.

Why: Chinese can break between any two characters, so a long headline wraps differently at different widths. This is only visible once actually rendered.

Please tell us when we are wrong

If you find an error here — a fact, a figure, a process, or a platform that has changed while we still describe the old behaviour — please get in touch through the contact page. Once verified we will fix it and record it on this page.

Messages pointing out errors are handled first. That kind of feedback is worth more to this site than any other form of support.