Talk:Blockchain.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blockchain.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Cryptocurrency Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Blockchain.com, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. RG for Blockchain (talk · contribs) has been paid by Blockchain.com. Complete disclosure on user page.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BlockChain.info

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-info-reaches-one-million-wallets/

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-most-popular-bitcoin-website-wallet/

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-info-acquires-bitcoin-price-app-zeroblock/

http://www.coindesk.com/10-brilliant-bitcoin-sites/

http://www.coindesk.com/review-of-blockchain-bitcoin-wallet-for-android/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think this post could also be improved by segmenting it into different sections: Overview, Timeline, Controversy, and Direction.

Overview
Blockchain.info is a Bitcoin wallet and block explorer service...

Timeline

• In April 2011,...

• In 2014, Apple removed Coinbase from its store but eventually became more open again to Bitcoin wallet applications. ^[1]
• In September 2016, Apple has removed at least two of its formerly approved digital currency applications without giving a detailed explanation of this development. ^[2]
• In China, Wiper, a messenger app, was removed from the iOS store after integrating its services with Bitcoin.^[3]

Direction
The Thunder Network is a platform for potentially sending Bitcoin to third parties. Thunder is still in prototyping stage — transactions are not yet enforceable.

Ellenchannn (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? I added more thorough and updated information under Direction; the Controversy part is new also, and the 2nd bullet is something that is pretty recent.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the information comes from Coindesk and Blockchain Ltd. Coindesk is a page that gathers all digital currency news and Blockchain Ltd. is a good place to see where the technology is heading. I would say Coindesk is a neutral source; Blockchain Ltd. is good also since we are not advertising anything.

Ellenchannn (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was editing the official links and noticed this diff: 16 June 2016‎. The link does not appear to work but still, weird. --Nanite (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

How to remove icloud from device — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.2.236 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@91.105.10.200: note that we have restricted sourcing on all blockchain articles. See WP:GS/Crypto is also in place. Since you are an IP address editor, i wont bother to place the template on your page at this time. Note that for crypto articles the only sources that are acceptable are very high quality news orgs, like wsj, nyt, bloomberg, fortune, wired. Hackernoon I am not sure where that lies, but I have seen it used. For sure blockchaindotcomsucks or whatever that blog was that you added is not ok to use FYI. Next, you cannot just revert things that you dont agree with per GSCrypto (link above). If you continue to revert we will just protect the page (meaning you and all IP address edits wont be able to edit it). Final warning. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hackernoon is accepted? Okay here! https://hackernoon.com/my-experience-with-blockchaincom-lost-funds-bad-support-low-reviews-ja8x332l Now you can stop whining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.14.216 (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. COI editor to upload the logo with sufficient rationale and reopen this request.

Hi there, I work for Blockchain.com and have a request for this article. There's no logo in the infobox yet and this is something that seems to be typical in company articles. To fix this, could editors help with uploading the Blockchain.com logo to Wikipedia as fair use so that it can be added to this article? I'm not yet able to upload as I am a new editor.

Here's the link to the logo.

Can someone please upload and add this to the page? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RG for Blockchain: Appreciate the full COI disclosure, that is certainly the correct way to do it. Adding logos is a bit of a hassle and something that I am not super skilled at, thus I dont want to do the whole process. FYI, your logo must be uploaded to wikimedia.org with the necessary procedures regarding license. I am not an experienced wikimedia user, although I vaguely understand the process. Here is a help doc Help:Adding_image and WP:LOGOS. After you have added your logo over at wikimedia wait two weeks (to see if the image doesn't get deleted over at wikimedia) then ping me again over here at wikipedia and I will assist to add to the article. While these two platforms are somewhat related, it seems that most editors specialize in one of the two areas. Here is a link to the blockstream logo in case that provides somewhat of a model of what needs to be done over at wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: A small addendum. Only copyright free logos should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as Commons is meant to be repository of copyright free content. If the Blockchain.com feels their logo meets the Commons:Threshold of originality they should upload it to Wikipedia itself as a non-free logo.

@RG for Blockchain: Edit requests are generally used to propose a specific change to be implemented by an independent editor. Thus, I would also, in line with Jtbobwaysf, suggest you upload your logo to either Wikipedia or Wikimenda Commons with correct rationale, and then let us know about it here by reopening this request. Melmann 11:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Melmann: Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RG for Blockchain: please either 1. upload a WP:LOGOS compliant logo to this talk page and one of us will add it to the main page...OR 2. upload a file to wikimedia that complies with wikimedia policies and we will upload it to wikipedia. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thanks @Jtbobwaysf and Melmann: Thank you both for the helpful comment thread here. The main issue I was having is that the logo needed to be uploaded as fair use but I couldn't do it yet due to being such a new editor. I've been able to upload now, so I'm hoping one of you can add the logo to the page?

Here's the logo file: File:Blockchain.com logo 2020.png

In case anyone else sees this request and didn't spot my disclosure above, I work for Blockchain.com and I'm making this request for the company's benefit. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added it. I also changed the infobox type to company. And I moved the online link to the bottom since I didnt know how to add the onion link to the company infobox (maybe it was as simple as editing the infobox, but wasn't sure if it was ok to add extra fields to an infobox). Let me know if ok. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Jtbobwaysf: the logo looks good and I totally agree with the change to the infobox. I'd been thinking about that too and will post another request here shortly about filling it in some more and maybe adjusting the short description. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

blockchain.com has been Proven to be a fraud. Even Users with two factor identification (2FA) enabled Immediately upon Account opening, and depositing any Funds have habitually had their Accounts Wiped-out by blockchain.com. Even to the Extent that they say they Never granted Access to any other person or entity. The Company is a Scam. Out of All complaints on Trustpilot, Facebook Page, etcetera, they all say that blockchain removed their funds Wholly and Completely - via Various Methods - and users Never recovered Any of their Funds. This is not Only all-too-common, but it has happened to Every person who has Deposited money, and then Later tried to get it Out. Requests sent to "Support" via their Webpage are Continuously- and Wholly ignored, completely. 100% of people who have Deposited money with blockchain.com were never able to recover their Funds. Further, 0% of the people were Able to get their Deposits back. The ultimate Conclusion: blockchain.com is a Fraudulent company. Skydiverest (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please provide reliable sources discussing this, as we cannot just add one editor's opinion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

All the evidence and sources have already been provided. Someone on Wikipedia is just playing for Blockchain.com and does not want to add this the article. This person even locked this article so that people cannot edit it anymore. Here's the collection of evidence: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/mcd99v/warning_stay_away_from_blockchaincom_wallet/

That is not a reliable source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is. Check the link. But you don't care about it. You probably work for Blockchain.com

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Blockchain.com is a fraudulent site for a Bitcoin wallet that teams up with multiple sites of scam artists to steal money from people’s crypto wallets. Is not a legit company. 142.161.59.26 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I have a second request for the Blockchain.com page. I noticed that Jtbobwaysf changed the infobox version to the one for companies, which is great! It would be good to be able to include some more facts about the company in the new infobox. If it's helpful, I've filled in the appropriate template below:

Blockchain.com

Industry	Cryptocurrency
Founded	August 2011; 15 years ago (2011-08) in York, United Kingdom[1]
Founder	Benjamin Reeves, Founder Nicolas Cary, Co-founder Peter Smith, Co-founder[1]
Headquarters	Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
Key people	Peter Smith, CEO and Co-founder Nicolas Cary, Co-founder and Vice Chairman Jim Messina, Board of Directors[1]
Products	Cryptocurrency wallet; cryptocurrency exchange; cryptocurrency blockchain explorer; institutional lending[2]
Website	blockchain.com

Also, I saw that the "short description" was updated by Jtbobwaysf too, though it reflects only part of what Blockchain.com does now. Is this something that can be expanded more? If so, could it be changed to the following or similar wording:

"A cryptocurrency company that operates a website offering a cryptocurrency wallet, exchange, a blockchain transaction explorer, and institutional lending."

Could someone make these two changes for me? I work at Blockchain.com and have a conflict of interest, so I'm making this request on the company's behalf. RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did partially. I cleaned up the infobox a bit and removed some excess text. I didnt change the short description as it sounds like it came from the marketing department. Maybe someone else should look at the short description and comment on it. I would think it should be short and primary, not a list of services. Maybe you are 'a cryptocurrency software company'? Would be great to add number of employees to infobox if you are comfortable to disclose that.It seems non-controversial from a WP standpoint, so I am not sure if it needs to be sourced. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Jtbobwaysf: this is all helpful feedback. For the short description would "Cryptocurrency exchange and software platform" work? My thought is that "cryptocurrency software company" alone is too broad but the addition of "exchange" focuses on a key aspect of what Blockchain.com offers.

The number of employees isn't in a public source, though I can share that it is currently about 185.

One last question: Can Nicolas Cary be added in the Key people for Vice Chairman role? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The title of vice chairmain is odd enough that I dont think it is DUE here. I am not strongly opposed to it, but maybe someone else will support your request on that (not me at this time). Short description seems obvious when I look at the website, but I think I would put the software first, as blockchain.info is primarily notable as a wallet. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again @Jtbobwaysf: for your feedback, and for adding the employee number and adjusting the short description. I'll wait to see if anyone else has thoughts about adding Nic to the infobox. RG for Blockchain (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again. Thanks for the help and feedback that I've received here so far. I have been looking at how else to help with this article and it feels like History could be much more descriptive about how Blockchain.com was founded and its main milestones. With some help, I've researched and have a draft that would add content to better explain the company's background. I've put the draft into a user page so that it can be easily reviewed and edited as needed: History draft

To help with reviewing, I've included the draft content below to show what I would add (in green) and what is currently in the article (regular text).

Can someone please review and add this to the article? I understand if there have to be any edits before it is included on the page. Again, I work for Blockchain.com and I'm making this request for the benefit of the company. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: This is a bigger ask than my previous requests, would you still be able to help? I've added the request template, too just in case. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yahoo finance, coindesk, pando africa business insider, token post, sbc news, cointelegraph are all not WP:RS. Please remove all the content that doesnt have high quality sources for this. Note that the RS link wont explain that those sources are not RS for cryptocurrency articles. However, there is a general consensus that applies to all crypto articles, there is no point to try to push back on it (its a useful rule and has clamed down on a lot of token nonsense everywhere at wikipedia). After you have removed all the content that doesnt have sources (or has poor sources) ping me again and I will have a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for the feedback about the sources. I didn't realize those couldn't be used for facts about the company history but it makes sense that Wikipedia wants to be cautious. I've replaced as much as I can with more acceptable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wired etc) and trimmed anything I can't source. The Africa BI source is actually an article that was published on the main Business Insider site, but on the main site was behind a paywall, which is why I used the Africa link. I've updated to the main site now. I also wanted to ask about the World Economic Forum Technology Pioneer recognition: I removed this for now, though would the WEF site be considered an appropriate source to include it? The draft is updated above as well as on my user page. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say in general it looks great and I am ok to add it. Couple of questions first. The sentence about Brian Armstrong is unsourced, is there a source for that? What is the proposed text for the WEF? Also uncontroversial and maybe could use a primary source for it, if the text is not promotional in nature (some other editor could delete it, but I personally dont have an issue with it in theory depending on what the text says, if the proposed text says 'the founder is the next Einstein', probably not so ok ;-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks again for your feedback! The first and third citations—Wired (McMillan2014) and Fortune (Hackett2021)—support the sentence about Brian Armstrong. I included them at the end of the 3 sentences about Ben and Brian working together, since they support all of that content.

The sentence I'd like to add about the WEF recognition is: The World Economic Forum named Blockchain as a "Technology Pioneer" in 2016, for the company's impact on the financial services industry. ^[19] What do you think? RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

WEF I find it interesting and suggest including it. I think I would say "The World Economic Forum named Blockchain.info as one of 2016's "Technology Pioneers" . It needs to be more neutral. On blockchain articles normally I am using a cite on every sentence. I suggest doing that, no need to WP:OVERCITE, one or two is enough. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thank you again! All of those changes should now be in the draft, both above and on on my user page. For the WEF addition, your wording sounded fine to me, though I changed to say "Blockchain" rather than "Blockchain.info" to be more accurate since it was Blockchain the company that received the recognition rather than its initial website, Blockchain.info, and that's reflected by the WEF website too, which lists it as Blockchain. With these changes, do you feel like this is ready to be added to the page? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Part of the issue for me is that the word Blockchain is so generic and confusing to the reader. I would prefer to use whatever was the name at the time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Ah, I see. The company's name at the time was just "Blockchain" per the WEF listing and sources from around then. The name was changed in 2019 to "Blockchain.com" because of the potential confusion, but before then it was just Blockchain. If it makes it clearer, maybe the WEF sentence can just say "the company" instead? The sentence would then be The World Economic Forum named the company as one of 2016's "Technology Pioneers". Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "the company" is good. Let me know when. it is all done above and I will add it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: All done! I've edited above and you can see the clean version that might be easier for copying across to the article on my user page here. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

In this edit i fixed a broken cite. Can you have a look and see what other cites needed to be renamed (there were two mcmillan sources, and they need different cite names). Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thank you! It looks really good. Sorry about the citation issue that snuck in there. The named references that need updating to McMillan201403 are just the ones in the second paragraph of the section. If it makes it easier to see which ones it is, I have fixed them on my user page here. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is this ok? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: That's exactly it! Thank you and thanks overall for your help with this section. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Hi again. Thank you for the help so far with my requests here. I have a short request next about the categories and one of the navigation boxes on the page. Looking at some similar companies, I saw a couple of categories being used that would also apply to Blockchain.com:

• Digital currency exchanges
• Bitcoin exchanges

Could these be added to the page?

Also, in the Bitcoin navigation box at the end of the page, Blockchain.com is not actually included as far as I can see. It would make sense to list it as a bitcoin exchange alongside Binance, Coinbase etc. Could this change be made?

Could someone please make these two additions? I work at Blockchain.com and have a conflict of interest, so I'm making this request on the company's behalf. RG for Blockchain (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discussion on the template page Template_talk:Bitcoin#add_blockchain.com_template and pinged you. As to adding more categories to this article, it is already listed as a bitcoin company, I am not sure it needs to also be bitcoin exchange. I would think that blockchain is more notable as a wallet than as an exchange, and think that too many categories would be excessive. Maybe others will comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Partly done: 'BItcoin company' is not the same as 'Bitcoin exchange', so I've added the exchange category. 'Digital currency exchanges' category is parent category for the 'Bitcoin exchange' category, so there is no need to add it since all subcategories are automatically members of all the parent categories. Melmann 19:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Jtbobwaysf: for opening that discussion. @Melmann: Thanks for adding the category and for the explanation about the Digital currency exchanges category. I understand that is the parent category but wonder if it still applies since Blockchain.com's exchange is used for other cryptocurrencies too? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Digital currency exchange would cover all the subset exchanges and thus is redundant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again. While editors are still considering the navigation box question above, I wanted to go ahead and share another suggestion for this page. There is not currently a section that talks about what Blockchain.com offers as a business and how it generates revenue. Looking at other companies, I saw that a "Business model" overview is standard, so I have a draft aiming to give a high level view of the company's overall business and specific main products. Like with the History, I've put the draft into a user page for ease of reviewing and editing: Business model draft

As this is a totally new section, I don't have a comparison with current content. This would be a full new addition to the page.

Can someone please review this new draft? If any edits are needed before it can be added to the page, please let me know and I can answer any questions or help with those changes. To repeat my disclosure, I work for Blockchain.com and I'm making this request for the benefit of the company. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am shocked you found sources for all of that, but seems you have. I would not support the fastest exchange as such claim is WP:UNDUE and flies in the face of the obvious that I have heard (certainly my view is undue as well) that BitMex, Bitfinex, and Binance are the heavies in this high-frequency trading space. I recognize that blockchain wants to be there, but adding this in wikipedia is not at all ok (nor would bitmex's claim to the be fastest either). I think business insider is not a good enough source for blockchain articles as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Jtbobwaysf: This is helpful feedback and I will look into replacing the Business Insider source and taking another look at the fastest exchange detail. Is the draft otherwise appropriate? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

In general the content seemed ok. I think the "business model" is probably not appropriate as a header (sounds somewhat promotional). But I couldnt think of anything else off hand, maybe something might come to you. I dont recall ever seeing another wikipedia article with those headers, but i by no means am an expert on WP:CORP section names. You might have a look there. But the text seemed mostly ok. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again @Jtbobwaysf: I have replaced the Business Insider citation and removed the sentence about Blockchain saying that it was the fastest exchange. I wasn't sure what section heading would work best and couldn't see any specific guidance at WP:CORP or on the WikiProject Companies pages, so I've suggested Products and services as an alternative. Everything is updated in the draft in my user space, if you'd like to look again. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I made a few edits to your sandbox. Let me know if you have any more comments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Jtbobwaysf: Your edits look fine to me. In the Explorer section I made an additional copy edit just to help with the flow and keep things clear for readers who might not be familiar with hashes. Do you feel ready to add it to the page? Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it is probably ok, lets wait a week or two to see if any other editors comment. If nobody comments, ping me back and i will add it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jtbobwaysf: Checking back now that it's been a week to see if you feel comfortable adding this. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it seems there are not yet any objections to the content. I was going to copy it over, but I think the other content on the article might be then duplicate or redundant. Could you maybe on your sandbox delete what content you might think would be redundant? I mean add history to your sandbox, then have a look where that history is now redundant if we add the new text. Essentially when we copy in a large amount of text like this we can make readability issues, as the flow seems off. Does that make sense? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jtbobwaysf: That is a good point that there are a few details that are duplicated between this draft and the History. I think it's important to keep the details in History as they show how the company has evolved over time, so I've made some trims to the Products and services draft. Specifically, I cut the details that are duplicated regarding number of users, number of wallets, and the % of bitcoin transactions sent and received from Blockchain wallets. I couldn't see any content in History that would be redundant based on the updated Products and services draft. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I merged the changes for the most part. I removed a PR-sounding sentence about the company's aim. I also merged the acquisitions into the history (if done clumsily, feel free to edit that). The company isn't really notable for acquisitions, so I would think a section on that is UNDUE and generally excessive sections on a small article is not in line with WP:MOS. Let me know if you have any commments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jtbobwaysf: Thanks, it all looks good and makes sense to me about merging the acquisitions. Per your note below, the citations are slightly mixed up: the two Roberts citations in the Exchange section should both simply be <ref name=Roberts2019/> and the citation at the end of the Institutional markets business should be <ref name=Roberts201910>{{cite news |last=Roberts |first=John |date=October 1, 2019 |title=Blockchain Taps Blackrock and Goldman Sachs Vet as Its General Counsel |url=https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/blockchain-howard-surloff/ |work=Fortune |location= |access-date=March 17, 2021}}</ref> Sorry about that! Thanks again, RG for Blockchain (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please proceed to fix those cite issues on the article. As a COI editor you are not prohibited to edit and certainly fixing cites is non-controversial. If anyone complains (very unlikely) you can always say I asked you to do it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RG for Blockchain: in my last couple of edits I fixed a cite error we have relating to these two fortune posts that were using the same citeref. I changed the cite ref to create a new one "Roberts201910" so there wasnt a conflict. But all of the rest of the cites refer to Roberts2019, so i am not sure if some of those should rather refer to Roberts201910. Could you please have a look? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Jtbobwaysf: I wasn't sure if I should make that kind of edit but based on your note above, I've fixed the citations. RG for Blockchain (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again. I have just two last requests for this page that I wanted to make together since they're both fairly short. First, I have a draft for a Corporate Affairs section to provide readers with a simple overview of the company governance and funding. Similar to my other requests above, I've put the draft into a user page so it is easier to review and edit: Corporate affairs draft

This is another fully new addition to the page and could be added at the end, following the Products and services.

Also, I wanted to offer an edit on the introduction to the page to give a better summary of the company based on the content of the page. The wording now still sounds like it is discussing Blockchain.com as a website, rather than as a company. My draft is still a short and simple introduction but hopefully explains the company and what it is best known for more clearly:

Can someone please review these two drafts? I will do my best to answer any questions or help with edits needed before they can be added to the page. To confirm my disclosure, I work for Blockchain.com and I'm making this request for the benefit of the company. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it looks more or less ok. I dont like the "most popular" part as that sounds promotional. I think the 28% speaks for itself. Also the corporate affairs looks good, but the term 'corporate affairs' isnt a section name I have seen before. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for the quick reply and review. For the "most popular" wording, I was basing that on wording that has been used in a few different sources, specifically NYT (2014): "among the most popular wallet services in the world", and Wall Street Journal (2013): "Blockchain.info, which operates a popular bitcoin "wallet."" I think the wording helps make it clear that the wallet had a lot of users from an early stage.

The "Corporate affairs" heading is one that's used in major company articles including Apple Inc., Walmart, Microsoft, and Google. It seems to be fairly commonly used, though I'm open to other ideas! Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK with corporate affairs, thanks for the clarification. I am not willing to add the most popular moniker, it is just too promotional and not what we do in WP:WIKIVOICE normally. If we could find something historical to say 'it was once the most popular and accounted for 60% of all wallets but today is estimated to be less than 5%'...This might provide some historical context, and then might be due. But just calling it the most popular, which I somewhat doubt is the case today (certainly my opinion is not due either). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for explaining your thoughts about the "most popular early cryptocurrency wallets" wording. I'm not sure that I can expand the details in the way that you're looking for. In that case, does this work better:

As a side note, I was looking back at History while thinking about this and realized that a couple of edits have been made that changed the meaning and made it inaccurate. It says "In early 2012, Reeves worked with Brian Armstrong, the co-founder of crypto-currency exchange Coinbase, on the software application to bring to startup accelerator Y Combinator's summer class that year. They developed a payment platform for bitcoin…" This makes it sounds like Armstong and Reeves had worked on Blockchain.info together and developed it into a payment platform together, which is not correct. Per the sourcing and my original draft: they had applied to attend Y Combinator with a concept for the payment platform for Bitcoin. (I think my using the word "application" might have caused confusion as I intended it to mean "they applied" rather than "they developed an app".) Would you mind fixing the wording? Here's what my draft said: "In early 2012, Reeves worked with Brian Armstrong, the co-founder of crypto-currency exchange Coinbase, on an application to attend the startup accelerator Y Combinator's summer class that year. The idea they developed was a payment platform…" As well, there's some duplication and this sentence can be removed: "It had acquired two companies, ZeroBlock in 2013, and RTBTC in early 2014, through which it added data analytics services, and brought these services together under one umbrella." Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am ok with the revised text above (collapsed) that has the 28% number, and I think that is encyclopedic. Also I did make a couple of changes just now to the Armstrong-Reeves text. Is that ok now? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for making those edits, the text in History looks good now. For the introduction and Corporate affairs, would you be able to add those to the article? It sounds like you're comfortable with the wording for both at this point. Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have added both suggestions (with some slight changes). The Barclays text is not needed as the cofounder already has his own wikipedia article and readers can read about him there. The Barclay's CEO title is a bit undue weight and/or promo as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jtbobwaysf: Thank you, the introduction and Corporate affairs both look great. I am very grateful for all of your feedback and help to improve this page. I've marked this request as complete and that's the end of my requests here for now! Thanks, RG for Blockchain (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since 2021 the internet is full of scam accusations, especially on Trustpilot and other pages, ranking dumped from 4 to 2.3 and lower. Seems they are about to exit scam. See https://www.trustpilot.com/review/blockchain.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:5CC0:2C00:10FC:2FA5:2A87:FEC2 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention about Blackchain.com having a Cryptocurrency tumbler service or something. Someone needs to locate a source in accordance with WP:RS, and update the article to refer to said source, otherwise it cannot belong to the Cryptocurrency tumbler category. --Minoa (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply