Original CryptoSignalsReview dataset research
Which Crypto Signal Provider Metadata Fields Appear Together?
Marginal coverage counts hide whether useful fields occur on the same record. This report publishes the seven observed metadata bundles while keeping collection completeness separate from verification.
Inspect the metadata intersectionsNo signup, payment, wallet connection, or credentials are required.
9 of 16 possible four-field patterns do not occur.
58.4% contain only the explicit key among the four fields.
3.3% contain route, alias, subscriber observation, and explicit key.
Direct answer
Only 7 of the 16 possible present-or-blank combinations occur across direct route, alias, subscriber observation, and explicit dedupe key fields. 1,870 records contain only an explicit key among those four fields. 1,132 contain route, alias, and subscriber metadata but no explicit key. Just 106 contain all four, and 8 contain none. This is a map of source-pipeline bundles, not an evidence-readiness score: no bundle produces a CSR-verified provider or a CSR-reviewed result sheet.
Four binary fields and their limits
| Field | Present when | Useful for | Cannot establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct route | At least one Telegram, Discord, WhatsApp, or website URL field is populated | Locating a captured provider-specific destination | Current ownership, authorization, continuity, or safety |
| Alias | At least one stored alternative-name value exists | Retrieval and entity-resolution review | Rebrand, affiliation, or common operator |
| Subscriber observation | A finite nonnegative integer count is stored | Describing source-supplied audience metadata | Active users, customers, trust, reach, or performance |
| Explicit key | The source-derived dedupeKey field is populated | Opaque comparison and importer tracing | Verified identity or an automatic merge decision |
Comparison version route-alias-subscriber-explicit-key-crosstab-v1 evaluates each field independently on one unique CSR provider slug. Presence means the manifest contains a qualifying value. It does not test freshness, correctness, provenance strength, agreement with another source, or suitability for a user decision.
Seven observed metadata patterns
| Mask | Direct route | Alias | Subscriber | Explicit key | Records | Share | Source-family composition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0001 | Blank | Blank | Blank | Present | 1,870 | 58.4% | RealTelegram channel category: 1,870 |
1110 | Present | Present | Present | Blank | 1,132 | 35.4% | TGStat crypto group rating: 598; TGStat crypto category: 534 |
1111 | Present | Present | Present | Present | 106 | 3.3% | Cornix supported group marketplace: 85; TGStat crypto category: 21 |
0100 | Blank | Present | Blank | Blank | 52 | 1.6% | Manual provider seed: 40; Public WhatsApp source family: 12 |
1100 | Present | Present | Blank | Blank | 26 | 0.8% | Manual provider seed: 26 |
0000 | Blank | Blank | Blank | Blank | 8 | 0.3% | Manual provider seed: 8 |
0110 | Blank | Present | Present | Blank | 6 | 0.2% | Public Discord source family: 6 |
The mask order is direct route, alias, subscriber observation, explicit key. For example, 1110 means the first three fields are present and the explicit key is blank. The seven rows sum to 3,200. The other 9 logical combinations have zero records and are not silently converted into missing rows.
The bundle pattern follows the collection path
The largest pattern, 0001, contains all 1,870 RealTelegram records: explicit key present, other three fields blank. Pattern 1110 contains 1,132 TGStat rows with direct route, alias, and subscriber metadata but no explicit key. Pattern 1111 contains 106 rows: 85 Cornix and 21 TGStat-category rows.
The smaller patterns are equally diagnostic. All 26 route-plus-alias-only rows are manual seeds. The 6 alias-plus-subscriber rows are the Discord source family. Alias-only rows combine 40 manual and 12 WhatsApp records. The 8 all-blank rows are manual seeds. These exact alignments show importer design, not natural provider classes.
Pairwise and three-field intersections
| Intersection | Records | Share of inventory | Narrow interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct route and alias | 1,264 | 39.5% | Every direct-route record also has an alias field in this snapshot. |
| Direct route and subscriber | 1,238 | 38.7% | Most route-bearing rows come from subscriber-supplying sources. |
| Direct route and explicit key | 106 | 3.3% | Only the all-four pattern bridges these fields. |
| Alias and subscriber | 1,244 | 38.9% | Every subscriber observation has an alias field. |
| Alias and explicit key | 106 | 3.3% | The same ${fmt(metadataBundles.recordsWithAllFour)} all-four rows create this overlap. |
| Subscriber and explicit key | 106 | 3.3% | The same all-four rows create this overlap. |
| Route, alias, and subscriber | 1,238 | 38.7% | Combination of the 1110 and 1111 patterns. |
Intersections answer whether values coexist on one record. They do not answer whether the values agree, whether the route is official, whether the count is current, or whether the key correctly groups an entity. A large intersection can be entirely explained by one importer.
Narrative dossiers sit outside the route and key bundles
| Dossier cross-check | Records | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Four-field editorial dossier present | 18 | Public footprint, offer style, proof focus, and claim posture are all populated. |
| Dossier with direct route | 0 | No dossier row has a populated direct-route field in this snapshot. |
| Dossier with alias | 18 | Every dossier row has at least one alias. |
| Dossier with subscriber observation | 6 | Only the six Discord dossier rows have counts. |
| Dossier with explicit key | 0 | No dossier row has an explicit source key. |
| Dossier with search terms | 18 | Every dossier row has editorial query terms. |
| Dossier with quality note | 1 | One dossier row has a correction or quarantine note. |
This disconnect is another warning against a single completeness score. Narrative research, identity routing, audience metadata, and source keys were collected through different workflows. Adding their presence flags together would reward importer breadth without measuring evidence quality.
Workflow status by pattern
| Mask | Records | Listed for review | Quarantined | What status still does not prove |
|---|---|---|---|---|
0001 | 1,870 | 1,476 | 394 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
1110 | 1,132 | 853 | 279 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
1111 | 106 | 102 | 4 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
0100 | 52 | 49 | 3 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
1100 | 26 | 23 | 3 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
0000 | 8 | 8 | 0 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
0110 | 6 | 6 | 0 | Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved. |
The listed-for-review and quarantined columns sum to each pattern’s record count. Across the entire inventory, CSR-verified records remain 0 and CSR-reviewed result sheets remain 0. Field co-occurrence changes neither status.
How to use the cross-tab without inventing a score
- Identify the record’s actual pattern; do not impute blanks from its source family.
- Open the underlying values and preserve their source and snapshot date.
- Resolve the direct route independently before relying on aliases or payment instructions.
- Treat the subscriber count as an observed catalog value, not an audience-quality signal.
- Use the explicit key only as a review join; inspect names, routes, operators, products, and dates before merging.
- Request the missing identity, archive, execution, and terms evidence required for the decision.
A citation-safe aggregate statement is: “Seven route/alias/subscriber/key presence patterns occur in CSR’s frozen 3,200-record inventory.” Keep the inventory, field order, date, and non-verification boundary attached. Do not turn the 106 all-four rows into a verified-provider count.
Dataset boundary
This is a census of records in the CryptoSignalsReview candidate inventory at snapshot 2026-07-05, not a representative survey of every crypto signal provider or every messaging channel. Directory inclusion is discovery evidence only. Missing fields stay missing, platform labels can overlap, and no count proves provider quality, legality, profitability, or safety.
Frozen source: 5dcd30b2b1a0da9bacbaeec08244190dae19a49f. Unit: one unique CSR provider slug. Position: coverage is not endorsement.
Official context sources
These sources explain why identity, disclosure, complete performance evidence, and resistance to urgency matter. They do not validate any record in the CSR dataset.
- ESMA: finfluencer factsheet
Transparency, accuracy, paid-promotion disclosure, and recommendation boundaries.
- Investor.gov: social media and investment fraud
Identity verification, impersonation, testimonials, urgency, and social-media limitations.
Continue the transparency research
- Where the 3,200 Crypto Provider Records Came From
Source-family and field-completeness analysis for the 3,200-record CSR provider inventory, including TGStat, RealTelegram, Cornix, manual seeds, and gaps.
- Crypto Signal Provider Subscriber Counts: Distribution and Source Bias
Original distribution analysis of 1,244 stored subscriber observations across 3,200 CSR provider records, including quantiles, source coverage, skew, and non-claims.
- Crypto Signal Provider Country and Language Metadata Audit
Audit country and language labels across 3,200 crypto signal provider records, including source defaults, non-global coverage, and jurisdiction limits.
- Cornix Crypto Signal Marketplace Metrics: Review Sample Size Audit
Original audit of 85 frozen Cornix marketplace records: reviewer denominators, star summaries, derived weekly activity, offer flags, and exchange compatibility limits.
- Crypto Signal Provider Transparency Report 2026
Original analysis of 3,200 crypto signal provider candidate records: platform concentration, verification gaps, quarantine rates, sources, and missing evidence.