WalletFollow Research
WalletFollow editorial policy
WalletFollow Research is the platform’s editorial publishing label. Our guides explain public wallet data, metrics and product workflows. They use linked primary documentation and clearly labeled examples, distinguish observations from interpretation, and preserve limitations. Publisher attribution does not imply independent financial advice or a third-party audit.
Publish an answer to a distinct question
Knowledge-base guides explain definitions, practical checks and current product workflows. Blog articles develop repeatable research methods and decision frameworks. Each page should help a reader complete a specific research task rather than repeat the same introduction with a new wallet address or keyword.
The platform’s primary purpose is wallet and portfolio research. WalletFollow has a commercial interest in its own product. A guide should still be useful before signup and should identify what public data cannot establish, including future profitability, complete external exposure or suitability for an individual reader.
Use sources that support the claim
Venue mechanics should link to primary Hyperliquid documentation, and protocol explanations should link to the Model Context Protocol documentation. Product descriptions are checked against WalletFollow’s implemented workflows and current availability. A source link should substantiate the adjacent topic rather than imply an endorsement of WalletFollow.
Measured results need a period, scope, basis and observation time. Hypothetical arithmetic is labeled as an example. Vendor keyword estimates, competitor exports and selected public-wallet observations are not presented as independent market-wide studies. We do not invent customer outcomes, expert credentials, quotations or performance guarantees.
Be transparent about AI assistance
This educational foundation was prepared with AI assistance and checked against product contracts and linked primary documentation. WalletFollow Research names the publisher; it is not a fictional analyst biography. AI-assisted drafting does not establish that a claim is accurate or that a strategy has been independently validated.
Publication requires checking material factual claims, examples, product status and source links. An assistant’s explanation of a trader’s intent remains an interpretation unless evidence supports it. Generated screenshots, sample stories and simulated results must not be passed off as observed market reporting or actual customer performance.
Name what is live and what is planned
The documented WalletFollow Data API is live and read-only. The MCP connector, companion CLI and client plugins are planned. Copy execution requires the relevant registered-engine and account capabilities. A product guide should retain these distinctions rather than advertise a proposed tool as a released feature.
An educational article does not request wallet approval or establish trading authorization. Historical performance, a leaderboard position or a portfolio simulation does not guarantee future returns. Dates on articles describe editorial publication or review, while market-data timestamps describe underlying observations.
Update material claims and preserve context
Review a guide when venue rules, product capabilities, metric definitions or an identified factual error change its answer. A substantive review updates the displayed editorial date and all alternate text representations. Cosmetic changes should not manufacture an appearance of fresh market evidence.
A correction should identify the affected definition or claim and replace it with supported information. Keep old and new metric bases distinguishable where they change a comparison. Readers evaluating a possible discrepancy should retain the page URL, observed date, exact claim and supporting source; for a wallet result, also retain its address, time window and as-of time.