Chainstory conducted an analysis of nearly 2,900 crypto-focused press releases issued during a four-month timeframe and concluded that a large portion of that output came from entities the firm classifies as high risk or outright fraudulent. Roughly 62% of the releases examined were linked to projects falling into those categories.
The report draws particular attention to cloud-mining firms, where the problem appears most acute. In that subset, about nine out of ten issuers reviewed were placed in the high-risk or fraudulent classifications. Other lower-credibility corners of the market, described as fringe DeFi projects, also made extensive use of paid distribution.
Chainstory's findings point toward a distribution ecosystem that operates substantially on paid placements. Under that arrangement, projects can purchase access to broad media distribution networks with limited editorial gatekeeping. The study notes that large exchanges frequently use press wires to announce token listings, contributing to a constant stream of such notices.
More than half of the press releases audited by Chainstory centered on relatively minor items - exchange listings, modest product adjustments, or token sales - topics that would typically fall short of newsroom thresholds for dedicated coverage. By contrast, only about 2% of the releases were tied to what the firm categorized as substantive developments, such as funding rounds, mergers or substantive research.
Promotional language pervaded the sample. The analysis found that over half of all releases were flagged as overstated in tone, and nearly one-fifth were classified as clear marketing rather than neutral reporting. A small fraction of the content maintained a neutral tone.
The report raises concerns about the consequences of publishing paid content that closely resembles editorial news. Chainstory warns that widespread distribution of such material has the potential to erode editorial trust and could expose media organizations to ethical and legal challenges when they inadvertently promote questionable offerings.
Methodological note - The findings reflect Chainstory's review of the specified sample over the stated four-month period and the classifications applied by the firm.