Correction log
When we get something wrong and fix it, we log it here. Each entry names the piece, what it used to say, what it became, and why we changed it.
Last updated 2026-06-07
This page exists for a simple reason: we make mistakes, mistakes should be fixed, and fixes should be told to you. Putting the corrections out in the open is how you judge whether our content is actually reliable. They're sorted newest first, most recent change at the top. Typos and minor wording tweaks that don't touch the facts we usually don't log separately; what's collected here is the corrections that could change how you understand or judge something.
June 2026
Piece: "How trading fees work and how to cut them: Maker and Taker, sorted out"
Was: in an example, written as "using Binance's standard spot rate of 0.2% as an example."
Now: "using Binance's standard spot rate of around 0.1% as an example, and go by what the exchange page shows in real time."
Why: a reader wrote in to point out the number was too high. We checked and confirmed: Binance's standard spot maker rate has long sat in the 0.1% band (and goes lower still with BNB discounts, tier, and promotions). The old 0.2% was alarming people, a plain error. Fixed, with a line added to note that rates change and to go by the page in front of you.
Piece: "What are stablecoins like USDT and USDC, and why crypto can't do without them"
Was: one line read "stablecoins are pegged 1:1 to the dollar and are always worth exactly one dollar."
Now: "mainstream stablecoins are designed to stay close to one dollar, but they're not absolutely guaranteed. Brief de-peggings have happened in the past, and in extreme cases they can fail."
Why: "always worth exactly one dollar" is dangerously misleading. A stablecoin is "designed to stay close," not "guaranteed to equal," and writing it as a fixed fact would let a beginner believe it carries zero risk. This was a factual error and had to be fixed, with a risk note added.
Piece: "Locking down your account: setting up two-factor, anti-phishing, and a withdrawal allowlist"
Was: a reader flagged that one passage describing "two-factor" and "SMS codes" was easy to confuse, reading as if an SMS code were the same as two-factor and safe enough on its own.
Now: we rewrote the passage to make clear they're not the same thing. SMS codes can be bypassed by SIM-swap and similar attacks; a sturdier setup is an authenticator app (TOTP) for two-factor. We spelled out the difference between the two and which to prioritize.
Why: the original wasn't strictly a factual error, but it was ambiguous, and could let a beginner think "I got the text, so I'm safe" and let their guard down. Security content can't carry that kind of fuzziness, so the whole passage was rewritten.
Piece: "8 mistakes beginners make most, and how knowing them dodges half the danger"
Was: on futures risk, one line read "the worst leverage can do is wipe out your principal."
Now: "under high leverage, a sharp adverse move can trigger forced liquidation and your principal can vanish fast; in some situations you can even end up owing money beyond it, depending on the exchange's rules."
Why: "at most you lose your principal" understated the risk. We added the possibility of liquidation and negative balances, and a reminder to go by the exchange's rules. When the wording touches money and risk, we'd rather err on the conservative side.
For why we insist on correcting in public, and how we write, see About Pinecone Academy; for data freshness and risk, see the disclaimer.