Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest (COI) exists when a contributor has an external relationship to a subject – employment, founding, funding, token holdings, or an official role – that could reasonably be expected to influence how they write about it.^[1] A conflict is a fact about a contributor's position, not an accusation of bad faith: most COI editing on a wiki is done by people who simply know the subject best.

RADIX Wiki is open to wallet-authenticated editors and documents a live ecosystem, so COI editing is expected rather than exceptional. This policy sets out where conflicts arise, what a conflicted editor should do, and how an article that has drifted is marked.

Where conflicts arise here

The Ecosystem section is the main exposure: it documents live projects, and the people best placed to keep a project page accurate are usually building that project. Neutral point of view already names this as a structural conflict. The same applies to:

• Project and token pages – written or corrected by a founder, contributor, or paid contractor.
• Validator and node-runner pages – where the subject competes for delegated stake.
• Pages about a contributor’s own work – where the editor is the author, maintainer or operator of the thing the page documents. This wiki no longer keeps standalone biographies of living contributors, but their work has pages, and the conflict travels with the work.
• Financial position – holding, or having sold, an asset a page discusses. Disclosure matters most where a page touches supply, distribution, or treasury.

Coverage of a project is decided by notability, not by who is willing to write it. A conflicted editor cannot create notability for a subject by writing about it at length.

What a conflicted editor should do

• Disclose. State the relationship in the edit's revision message, and on the article's discussion thread for anything more than a typo fix.^[2] The full revision history of every page is public.
• Contribute facts, not framing. Corrections of dates, addresses, versions, and broken links are the most valuable COI edits and are welcome without ceremony.
• Cite independently. A claim about traction, adoption, or performance needs a source that is not the subject's own marketing – see verifiability. The project's repository, on-chain state, and public filings are primary sources and are fine; a press release describing itself as a milestone is not.
• Do not remove sourced criticism or unfavourable but verifiable facts – a dormant status, a closed product, a failed audit – from a page about yourself or your project.
• Propose, don't rewrite. For a contested change to a page about your own project, open a discussion thread and let an unconflicted editor make the call.

Undisclosed promotional editing is the failure mode this policy exists to catch. Disclosed COI editing that sticks to sourced fact is normal and useful.

Marking an affected article

When an article appears to have been shaped by an undisclosed connection to its subject, add a Conflict of interest notice banner to the top of the page rather than blanking it. The banner reads: "A major contributor to this article may have a close connection with its subject. It may need additional review for a neutral point of view." Where the problem is the writing rather than the authorship, the Written like an advertisement banner is the better fit. The full set of maintenance banners is catalogued in verifiability.

Banners are a request for review, not a verdict. Remove one once the article has been rewritten to neutral, sourced prose.

How this has worked here

This policy was adopted on 31 July 2026 into a wiki whose largest section had already been written by a conflicted contributor, and the record is public enough to state plainly. Of the 150 pages under Ecosystem, 111 arrived in a single import on 6 February 2026 from the account ShardSpace Admin, each carrying the same revision message: Imported from Notion export. ShardSpace is an asset-management dApp the directory itself lists, so one of the 111 pages is its own and another is Avaunt, the staking business its founder also runs. That is the structural conflict described above, at the scale of three quarters of a section, and the account name and the import message are the disclosure.

The three things this policy asks of a conflicted editor have a thinner record.

• Nobody has disclosed in a revision message. Across 2,818 revisions on 364 pages, written by the 16 accounts that have ever saved one, no message states the writer's relationship to the subject. The only disclosures on record describe someone else's: a project's own governance disclosure, a validator's fee change.
• The conflict-of-interest banner has never been placed. Five notice banners exist on the entire wiki. Three are Written like an advertisement and all three sit on imported ecosystem pages; the other two are Stub. The COI variant is offered in the editor and has been used zero times, on any page, by anyone.
• The discussion route is unused. Propose, don't rewrite sends a contested change to an article's discussion thread. The wiki holds four comments in its lifetime, three of them on the DAO Charter card, and the most recent was posted in April 2026.

The cause is arithmetic rather than reluctance. Of the 1,579 revisions saved in the last 90 days, 1,554 come from the maintenance account – 98.4 per cent – so a banner is a request for review addressed to the same pass coming round again, and that pass fixes in place instead. A policy written for many editors is being enforced by one.

Which leaves the cheapest instruction on the list as the one that works today. A contributor who wants their project's page to be right can correct the facts, cite something that is not their own site, and name the relationship in the revision message. The history is public and permanent, so that disclosure costs nothing to make and settles the question for every reader who comes after.

See also

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Notability
• Freshness
• Editorial notices