Corrections: When We Get It Wrong, We Fix It in the Open

No content site is error-free forever. The difference is what happens when an error shows up: do you pretend not to see it, or fix it openly and write down what changed. We chose the second. This page is AINEX's "ledger of mistakes", any verified error, stale figure, or unclear phrasing in our content gets corrected and logged here, with a note on what changed and why.

You're welcome to use this page as a yardstick: a site that's willing to publish even its corrections is, at the very least, taking the work seriously.

Spotted something wrong? Write to [email protected] and tell us exactly which page and which paragraph. If it checks out, we'll correct it, log it here, and thank you for helping us make the content more reliable.

Corrections log

2026-06-19 | Fee figures in the registration article were pinned too hard

Issue: an early draft of the Binance registration and KYC guide, in the funding section, at one point gave specific fee figures and limits. Numbers like these get adjusted by the platform from time to time, and pinning them down risks readers acting on stale figures.

Correction: all platform fees, limits, and review times were changed to a "range, plus go by what Binance's page shows live, plus the date checked" style, no longer handing readers an exact number that goes out of date. This is also our uniform approach to all content that touches platform data.

2026-06-19 | The face-scan section was too thin at first

Issue: the face scan (liveness check) in verification is the step beginners fail most often, but the first draft brushed past it with a single "follow the prompts," without explaining why it fails or how to fix it. Readers stuck there got no help from that article.

Correction: we added a dedicated section that gets to the real sticking points, the common causes (backlight, phone held too low, busy background, something covering the face) and the matching fixes. The source is what we ran into and worked out repeatedly while walking people around us through the process, not vague "just smile" advice.

2026-06-19 | The "resubmit if verification fails" line had it backwards

Issue: an early draft implied "if it doesn't pass, try resubmitting a few more times." That's actually backwards, frequent resubmission doesn't make it faster, it puts you back in the queue each time and can get flagged as unusual, making review slower.

Correction: changed to a clear reminder that "resubmitting won't make it faster, it makes it slower." The right move is to get the materials right once, submit, then wait patiently for the result, and if there's a real problem, wait for the system to say exactly what's wrong and fix that. We also added a table of common rejection reasons to help people fix the specific issue.

How we handle corrections

Verify first: when we receive a correction or spot a doubt ourselves, we check against official sources or reliable references and confirm there's genuinely an error before changing it, no fixing on a hunch.
Open and transparent: once changed, it's logged on this page, spelling out what was wrong and what it became, no quiet edits pretending nothing happened.
Fix the whole class: if one error reflects a category of problem (like pinning data too hard), we comb through similar content together rather than patching only that one spot.

This page will grow longer over time, and that's not a bad thing. It means we keep taking every word we publish seriously. To understand our overall stance and how we operate, see About.