1.This kids coloring book drawing that accidentally makes this woman look...curvier: · 2.This hand sanitizer bottle that's bound to cause a very thirsty person to make a big mistake:

48 Dumb, Misleading, Or Inappropriate Designs That Businesses Clearly Did Not Think Through At All

Clearly

clearly

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition by Edwin Abbott Abbott, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . PREFACE. here PREFACE. Almost every English boy can be taught to write clearly, so far at least as clearness depends upon the arrangement of words. Force, elegance, and variety of style are more difficult to teach, and far more difficult to learn; but clear writing can be reduced to rules. To teach the art of writing clearly is the main object of these Rules and Exercises. Ambiguity may arise, not only from bad arrangement, but also from other causes—from the misuse of single words, and from confused thought. These causes are not removable by definite rules, and therefore, though not neglected, are not prominently considered in this book. My object rather is to point out some few continually recurring causes of ambiguity, and to suggest definite remedies in each case. Speeches in Parliament, newspaper narratives and articles, and, above all, resolutions at public meetings, furnish abundant instances of obscurity arising from the monotonous neglect of some dozen simple rules. The art of writing forcibly is, of course, a valuable acquisition—almost as valuable as the art of writing clearly. But forcible expression is not, like clear expression, a mere question of mechanism and of the manipulation of words; it is a much higher power, and implies much more. Writing clearly does not imply thinking clearly. A man may think and reason as obscurely as Dogberry himself, but he may (though it is not probable that he will) be able to write clearly for all that. Writing clearly—so far as arrangement of words is concerned—is a mere matter of adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs, placed and repeated according to definite rules.[1] Even obscure or illogical thought can be clearly expressed; indeed, the transparent medium of clear writing is not least beneficial when it reveals the illogical nature of the meaning beneath it. On the other hand, if a man is to write forcibly, he must (to use a well-known illustration) describe Jerusalem as "sown with salt," not as "captured," and the Jews not as being "subdued" but as "almost exterminated" by Titus. But what does this imply? It implies knowledge, and very often a great deal of knowledge, and it implies also a vivid imagination. The writer must have eyes to see the vivid side of everything, as well as words to describe what he sees. Hence forcible writing, and of course tasteful writing also, is far less a matter of rules than is clear writing; and hence, though forcible writing is exemplified in the exercises, clear writing occupies most of the space devoted to the rules. Boys who are studying Latin and Greek stand in especial need of help to enable them to write a long English sentence clearly. The periods of Thucydides and Cicero are not easily rendered into our idiom without some knowledge of the links that connect an English sentence. There is scarcely any better training, rhetorical as well as logical, than the task of construing Thucydides into genuine English; but the flat, vague, long-winded Greek-English and Latin-English imposture that is often tolerated in our examinations and is allowed to pass current for genuine English, diminishes instead of increasing the power that our pupils should possess over their native language. By getting marks at school and college for construing good Greek and Latin into bad English, our pupils systematically unlearn what they may have been allowed to pick up from Milton and from Shakespeare. I must acknowledge very large obligations to Professor Bain's treatise on "English Composition and Rhetoric," and also to his English Grammar. I have not always been able to agree with Professor Bain as to matters of taste; but I find it difficult to express my admiration for the systematic thoroughness and suggestiveness of his book on Composition. In particular, Professor Bain's rule on the use of "that" and "which" (see Rule 8) deserves to be better known.[2] The ambiguity produced by the confusion between these two forms of the Relative is not a mere fiction of pedants; it is practically serious. Take, for instance, the following sentence, which appeared lately in one of our ablest weekly periodicals: "There are a good many Radical members in the House cannot forgive the Prime Minister for being a Christian." Twenty years hence, who is to say whether the meaning is " , i.e. members in the House," or "there are a good many Radical members of the House cannot &c."? Professor Bain, apparently admitting no exceptions to his useful rule, amends many sentences in a manner that seems to me intolerably harsh. Therefore, while laying due stress on the utility of the rule, I have endeavoured to point out and explain the exceptions. who and they all the Radical that The rules are stated as briefly as possible, and are intended not so much for use by themselves as for reference while the pupil is working at the exercises. Consequently, there is no attempt to prove the rules by accumulations of examples. The few examples that are given, are given not to prove, but to illustrate the rules. The exercises are intended to be written out and revised, as exercises usually are; but they may also be used for instruction. The books being shut, the pupils, with their written exercises before them, may be questioned as to the reasons for the several alterations they have made. Experienced teachers will not require any explanation of the arrangement or rather non-arrangement of the exercises. They have been purposely mixed together unclassified to prevent the pupil from relying upon anything but his own common sense and industry, to show him what is the fault in each case, and how it is to be amended. Besides references to the rules, notes are attached to each sentence, so that the exercises ought not to present any difficulty to a painstaking boy of twelve or thirteen, provided he has first been fairly trained in English grammar. vivâ voce The "Continuous Extracts" present rather more difficulty, and are intended for boys somewhat older than those for whom the Exercises are intended. The attempt to modernize, and clarify, so to speak, the style of Burnet, Clarendon, and Bishop Butler,[3] may appear ambitious, and perhaps requires some explanation. My object has, of course, not been to the style of these authors, but to show how their meaning might be expressed more clearly in modern English. The charm of the style is necessarily lost, but if the loss is recognized both by teacher and pupil, there is nothing, in my opinion, to counterbalance the obvious utility of such exercises. Professor Bain speaks to the same effect:[4] "For an English exercise, the matter should in some way or other be supplied, and the pupil disciplined in giving it expression. I know of no better method than to prescribe passages containing good matter, but in some respects imperfectly worded, to be amended according to the laws and the proprieties of style. Our older writers might be extensively, though not exclusively, drawn upon for this purpose." improve upon To some of the friends whose help has been already acknowledged in "English Lessons for English People," I am indebted for further help in revising these pages. I desire to express especial obligations to the Rev. J. H. Lupton, late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Second Master of St. Paul's School, for copious and valuable suggestions; also to several of my colleagues at the City of London School, among whom I must mention in particular the Rev. A. R. Vardy, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. * * * * * Before electrotyping the Fourth and Revised Edition, I wish to say one word as to the manner in which this book has been used by my highest class, as a collection of Rules for reference in their construing lessons. In construing, from Thucydides especially, I have found Rules 5, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 40_a_, of great use. The rules about Metaphor and Climax have also been useful in correcting faults of taste in their Latin and Greek compositions. I have hopes that, used in this way, this little book may be of service to the highest as well as to the middle classes of our schools. FOOTNOTES: [1] Punctuation is fully discussed in most English Grammars, and is therefore referred to in this book only so far as is necessary to point out the slovenly fault of trusting too much to punctuation, and too little to arrangement. [2] Before meeting with Professor Bain's rule, I had shown that the difference between the Relatives is generally observed the Shakespeare. See "Shakespearian Grammar," paragraph 259. [3] Sir Archibald Alison stands on a very different footing. The extracts from this author are intended to exhibit the dangers of verbosity and exaggeration. [4] "English Composition and Rhetoric," p. vii. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Edwin Abbott Abbott (2007). How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22600/pg22600.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Almost every English boy can be taught to write clearly

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition by Edwin Abbott Abbott is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. Read this book online for free on HackerNoon! : How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition Title : Edwin Abbott Abbott Author : September 14, 2007 [eBook #22600] Most recently updated: January 2, 2021 Release date : English Language TABLE OF LINKS PREFACE INDEX OF RULES. I. CLEARNESS AND FORCE. . WORDS ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE. II. BREVITY. CLEARNESS AND FORCE. WORDS. ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE. BREVITY. EXERCISES CONTINUOUS EXERCISES CLEARNESS. BURNET. BISHOP BUTLER. BREVITY. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Edwin Abbott Abbott (2007). How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22600/pg22600.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition - Table of Links

Dependency injection (DI) is a wonderful thing. Simply add your dependency as a parameter to the constructor (most commonly) of your class, register it with you DI container, and away you go - the DI container will manage the rest. Some of the key benefits of DI are: greater testability, greater maintainability, and greater reusability. : { { ( dbContent = MyDbContext())
        {
            dbContext.Orders.Add(order);
            dbContent.SaveChanges(); Ok();
        }
    } { ( dbContext = MyDbContext())
        { orders = dbContext.Orders.ToList(); JsonResult(orders);
        }
    }
} : { MyDbContext _dbContext; {
        _dbContext = dbContext;
    } {
        _dbContext.Orders.Add(order);
        _dbContent.SaveChanges(); Ok();
    } { orders = _dbContext.Orders.ToList(); JsonResult(orders);
    }
} // without DI public class OrderController Controller ActionResult ( ) public Post Order order using var new return ActionResult ( ) public Get using var new var return new // with DI public class OrderController Controller private readonly ( ) public OrderController MyDbContext dbContext ActionResult ( ) public Post Order order return ActionResult ( ) public Get var return new However, I recently came across a use case where DI can be a real pain - dependency injection in inherited classes. The Problem I have recently been working a lot with the package, using it's request/request handler pattern to issue commands in the system (inspired by ). Mediatr Jason Taylor's Clean Architecture solution I typically create a RequestHandler base class that contains common dependencies and functionality. Each concrete request handler can then inherit from this base class. < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = dbContext;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext base dbContext Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic The problem comes when I want to add more dependencies to the base class. Now I have to go through to every single concrete request handler and update the constructor to take the new dependency as well. Fortunately, the code will not compile if I miss one, so there is no risk of a runtime error, but it is still incredibly tedious work to have to update every single request handler. Also, you can end up with very large constructors, which obscures the intention of the class. < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = dbContext;
        CurrentUser = currentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser protected get protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser base dbContext, currentUser Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic The Solution - Dependency Aggregates The solution to this problem is really quite simple. Rather than injecting the dependencies directly, create a new class that contains the dependencies (known as an aggregate) and inject that instead. {
    IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; }
    ICurrentUser { ; }
} : { {
        DbContext = dbContext;
        CurrentUser = currentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; }
} < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = aggregate.DbContext;
        CurrentUser = aggregate.CurrentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public interface IDependencyAggregate get get public class DependencyAggregate IDependencyAggregate ( ) public DependencyAggregate IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser public get public get public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IDependencyAggregate aggregate protected get protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IDependencyAggregate aggregate base aggregate Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic Now if I want to add a new dependency, the only places that I need to change the code are in the DependencyAggregate class and the RequestHandler base class (I don't need to make any changes to the inherited classes). Conclusion In this post I have described a simple method for managing dependency injection in inherited classes, by creating a dependency aggregate class to inject into the base class. This ensures that new dependencies can easily be introduced with having to make changes to every inherited class. I post mostly about full stack .NET and Vue web development. To make sure that you don't miss out on any posts, please follow this blog and . If you found this post helpful, please like it and share it. You can also find me on . subscribe to my newsletter Twitter Previously published at https://samwalpole.com/handling-dependency-injection-in-inherited-classes

How to Create a Dependency Aggregate Class to Manage DI: Clearly Exemplified

I lead the technology industry business unit for a fast-growing analytics firm. And one of the perks of my job is the numerous conversations I get to have with a variety of prospects or clients. I recently read the novel ‘ by Rolf Dobelli, which deals with systematic cognitive errors of human beings as a result of our evolution. The Art of Thinking Clearly’ I enjoyed reading the book immensely, relating those cognitive errors to what I experience every day. I am selecting a few rampant cognitive errors mentioned in the book and linking them to situations I have come across. Neo-mania Def: The mania for all things new and shiny. The desire to have automation, machine models, artificial intelligence, and other such cutting-edge capabilities is intense in organizations today and probably justified. However, it’s alarming to see many of these efforts promise a very large ROI but never deliver it. marketing learning I once had an executive of a large organization say without batting an eyelid - “We have invested millions in a big data environment, and we now need to figure how to use it.” I am always disappointed when I hear things like — “Can you tell me how I can use machine learning capabilities in my business/function?” I wonder if anyone would say it if I replaced ‘machine learning’ with ‘statistics’. Conversely, the best use of ML/AI is when the need or a business problem was identified first and ML/AI emerged as a solution. Swimmer’s Body Illusion Def: Confusing the process of selection for effect. Rolf explains in the book that swimmers don’t have great bodies because they swim a lot; they are swimmers because their physique is suitable for swimming. I have seen companies falling to this illusion when they look to replicate an analytics success story from companies that seem to be doing very well and claiming that analytics is driving their success. It’s safe to say that the retail industry has the most mature analytics capability, but nobody is blaming the analytics team at Sears and Macy’s for their decline. In my opinion, most companies would succeed in their analytics initiatives if they just are more rational and use data to be just that. (Read more: Building an analytics-first organization ) Authority Bias Def: The tendency of human beings to follow authority without question, a culture most visible in religion but equally prominent in businesses. When I ask my clients why they were following a particular strategy, the responses most often indicate an authority bias. Interestingly, the bias seems more obvious when the perceived results from the strategy are less obvious. My advice to my clients has always been to focus on outcomes and not on the process. I am amazed even now that such a conversation isn’t always easy. The Paradox of Choice Def: Too many choices causing decision paralysis and subsequently leading to poor decisions. The number of , vendors, and technologies today is confounding. One would expect then that most clients would be happy with the choices they make. However, I haven’t seen a company that is entirely happy with its selection of business intelligence (BI) or . analytics solutions analytics platforms If only they hadn’t compared the tools with each other but against a prioritized list of their own needs, they would have come to a better decision. Default Effect/Status Quo Bias Def: A strong tendency to cling to the way things are, even when they put us at a disadvantage. Most tech companies with revenues of $500 million to $2 billion are hyper-focused on growth. The most important part of achieving growth is to size the market right, find the account segments to focus on, and then have the sales force or channel partners gain market share. One would imagine that these companies would have nailed this process well. I am yet to come across one. (Read more: Business Transformation — How Big Data Analytics Helps ) Alternative Blindness Def: Systematically forgetting to compare an existing offer with the next-best alternative. I have run across companies with no analytics capabilities looking to hire a team first, spending a million dollars, and losing quite a bit of time before they see any capability in action. When we provide them the alternative to spend less than half a million and have the capabilities stand up in six months, one would imagine it would be a no-brainer. It is, but only to our clients. *Please note that the terms and their descriptions are from Rolf Dobelli’s book. (This article was authored by Maruti Peri and first appeared on LinkedIn , the BRIDGEi2i blog & Datafloq .)

Master “The Art of Thinking Clearly” Before Making Your Analytics Investments!

This Web IDE Runs Your Code in the Cloud—Without Melting Your Laptop

Aka IDE Web ukax Código ukarux Cloud ukanw apnaqi —Jan Laptop ukar ch’amakt’ayasa

Este IDE web ejecuta su código en la nube sin dañar su computadora portátil

Web IDE honek zure kodea exekutatzen du hodeian, ordenagailu eramangarria urtu gabe

IDE אינטרנט זה מריץ את הקוד שלך בענן - מבלי להמיס את המחשב הנייד שלך

この Web IDE は、ラップトップを溶かしてしまうことなくクラウドでコードを実行します

Ši žiniatinklio IDE paleidžia jūsų kodą debesyje – neištirpdama nešiojamojo kompiuterio

Kay Web IDE Códigoykita Puyupi purichin—Mana Laptopniyki chulluchispa

Iyi Webhu IDE Inomhanyisa Kodhi Yako muGore-Isinganyungudutsa Laptop Yako

Web IDE นี้จะรันโค้ดของคุณบนคลาวด์โดยไม่ทำให้แล็ปท็อปของคุณละลาย

Bu Web IDE, Dizüstü Bilgisayarınızı Eritmeden Kodunuzu Bulutta Çalıştırır

یہ ویب IDE آپ کے لیپ ٹاپ کو پگھلائے بغیر آپ کے کوڈ کو کلاؤڈ میں چلاتا ہے۔

Le IDE Yewebhu Isebenzisa Ikhodi Yakho Efwini—Ngaphandle Kokuncibilikisa Ikhompyutha Yakho ephathekayo

Experimenting With Helm Can Take Your Kubernetes Skills to the Next Level

People Lie. Even When They Think They’re Telling the Truth

If you think trust is an important concept applicable only to interpersonal relationships and is only nominally important in business, it’s time to think again. In the crypto industry, it may be the deciding factor for the success of your startup. Users need to believe that you have their best interest in mind, and you need to show in every aspect the user has contact with. Plus, crypto enthusiasts are highly knowledgeable: they can dig into the tech, analyze security, and assess the platform’s reliability all on their own. On one hand, they will scrutinize your product inside and out. They’ll be skeptical — fake it until you make it and flashy marketing won’t fly here. That’s a straight ticket to being labeled a scam. On the other hand, this is an opportunity for founders who aren’t just building yet another Tier 1 trading tool but are actually bringing real value to the market — doing it safely, transparently, and with respect for their users. But let’s be real — startups need an MVP, and MVPs rarely come with full licenses, audits, and all the shiny badges of legitimacy. Unless, of course, you’ve raised massive funding from day one (but let’s get back to reality real quick). In this article, we’ll break down what a crypto startup founder CAN do to build trust from day one — without massive budgets or overpromising things you can’t deliver. 1. Transparent communication Transparency is not just a nice thing to have — it’s a practical way to enter the market and define your positioning. Especially in crypto. The Build in Public approach is well-known: developers share their progress to gain industry attention. Something similar works for trust-building in crypto, but the focus is different. It’s about clearly communicating how the product works, where it provides value, and where it doesn’t. Spoiler: if you can’t explain this to yourself, you won’t be able to convince anyone else. For example, if an exchange tries to compete with Binance or Bybit but has higher fees, worse liquidity, and no real advantages, users won’t switch. That’s why every crypto project needs to define its niche early and make it explicit. We figured this out quickly and focused on Tier 3 tokens instead of trying to compete on Tier 1 assets. Transparency is also about clarifying risks. If an exchange is non-custodial and a licensed custodian holds funds, it’s not enough to mention this in the docs — you have to explain why it matters. Experienced users know the difference between custodians, which ones are reliable and which ones might disappear along with their funds. If this isn’t addressed clearly, it raises red flags. In crypto, people don’t trust brands as much as they trust technical implementations. The more precisely you explain how things work, the more likely users are to take your project seriously. 2. Security and Regulation Cryptocurrency security isn’t just about protecting user funds — it’s about making sure users believe you won’t disappear with their money. How this is achieved depends on whether the project is DeFi-based or centralized, as each operates under different security models and user expectations. DeFi: Code as the Only Guarantee In DeFi, code is law, and security relies on open-source transparency and smart contract audits. Major protocols have their contracts audited by specialized firms like CertiK. It’s expensive, but users won’t trust a project without an audit. If the team is unknown and lacks a track record, an audit is often the only way to prove that the code isn’t riddled with vulnerabilities. However, even audits aren’t foolproof. Exploits still happen because once a contract is deployed, it can’t be patched, and attackers get more sophisticated over time. DeFi projects must go beyond audits and build security measures into their architecture. For example, they can implement withdrawal limits or emergency shutdown mechanisms to reduce damage in case of an exploit. Centralized Platforms: Licenses or Trust? DeFi projects rely on code for security – сentralized platforms rely on legal and institutional protections. Ideally, they should be licensed. But here’s the catch: licensed exchanges typically only cover spot trading and normally don’t offer the full range of features that users are seeking out. As a result, many centralized exchanges partner with third-party custodians for fund storage. Doing this allows them to minimize risks since user funds aren’t controlled directly by the exchange but are held by regulated custodial services. A centralized platform not having a license or a trusted custodian is a major red flag for users. In Short: DeFi projects rely on audits and transparent code for security.
Centralized platforms need licenses or trusted custodians to gain user trust.
If a project doesn’t clearly explain its security measures, users will assume it’s unsafe. 3. Real People Behind the Business The crypto industry remains one of the most anonymous spaces. Many projects operate without known teams or public leaders, which might be convenient for founders but doesn’t help build trust. When a project has no recognizable face, users are left with more questions than answers: — Who is behind this?— Will it still exist a year from now?— Can it be trusted? Anyone with crypto as the main occupation doesn’t rely on flashy websites or big promises. They look for people who stand behind the product and take responsibility for the results. Being open creates trust. A visible founder makes the project seem more credible. Engaging in podcasts, answering community questions, and explaining key decisions fosters confidence. People see a real person behind it — not just another anonymous, faceless operation. Building a personal brand doesn’t mean running a YouTube channel or aggressively marketing yourself. Sometimes, staying active in the community, participating in open AMA (Ask Me Anything) sessions, and speaking at industry events is more than enough. A simple rule: if you’re not afraid to show yourself, you have something tangible to share. 4. Technical Implementation In crypto, security is not just a feature. It’s a fundamental requirement for a project's survival. Users don’t take platforms at their word; they analyze how their funds are stored and how well the underlying mechanisms are protected. One of the key questions is: **Where are the funds stored? \ If a platform is centralized but non-custodial, users need to know exactly who holds their assets. For example, mentioning the name won't be enough if an exchange relies on a licensed custodian. It’s essential to explain what this means, including what licenses the custodian holds, its track record, and who operates it. Technical aspects also matter. Users closely examine how the platform's infrastructure is set up:— What risk management mechanisms are in place?— How reliable and user-friendly is the exchange API?— Does the platform have access to liquidity from major exchanges? The more transparent the technical implementation, the fewer doubts users have. When they see that a platform does not have direct access to their funds, that a licensed custodian manages assets, and that the project focuses purely on the technology — this builds trust. Remember, transparency in technical implementation is not a marketing buzzword; it’s a necessity. Crypto projects with closed, opaque storage and operational schemes inevitably raise red flags, and users vote against them with their wallets. Trust in crypto isn’t built on bold promises — it’s earned through real actions, transparency, and technological reliability. Unlike traditional fintech products, crypto users analyze risks themselves, assess the technical side, and deeply understand how platforms work. This sets a high bar for startups but also creates an opportunity to stand out through marketing and a thoughtful approach to building trust. The formula is: Transparent communication + Security and regulation + Real people behind the project + Technical implementation. If all variables align, you win. I've tested all of this in my own products, and the key takeaway is simple: you can’t “sell” a crypto product if it doesn’t pass users’ scrutiny for honesty, security, and real value. If users see nothing but a sleek landing page and marketing buzzwords, they’ll vote with their wallets and move on to something that works. If you think trust is an important concept applicable only to interpersonal relationships and is only nominally important in business, it’s time to think again. In the crypto industry, it may be the deciding factor for the success of your startup. Users need to believe that you have their best interest in mind, and you need to show in every aspect the user has contact with. Plus, crypto enthusiasts are highly knowledgeable: they can dig into the tech, analyze security, and assess the platform’s reliability all on their own. On one hand, they will scrutinize your product inside and out. They’ll be skeptical — fake it until you make it and flashy marketing won’t fly here. That’s a straight ticket to being labeled a scam. On the other hand, this is an opportunity for founders who aren’t just building yet another Tier 1 trading tool but are actually bringing real value to the market — doing it safely, transparently, and with respect for their users. fake it until you make it yet another But let’s be real — startups need an MVP, and MVPs rarely come with full licenses, audits, and all the shiny badges of legitimacy. Unless, of course, you’ve raised massive funding from day one (but let’s get back to reality real quick). In this article, we’ll break down what a crypto startup founder CAN do to build trust from day one — without massive budgets or overpromising things you can’t deliver. 1. Transparent communication 1. Transparent communication Transparency is not just a nice thing to have — it’s a practical way to enter the market and define your positioning. Especially in crypto. The Build in Public approach is well-known: developers share their progress to gain industry attention. Something similar works for trust-building in crypto, but the focus is different. It’s about clearly communicating how the product works, where it provides value, and where it doesn’t. Especially Build in Public Spoiler: if you can’t explain this to yourself, you won’t be able to convince anyone else. you won’t be able to convince anyone else. For example, if an exchange tries to compete with Binance or Bybit but has higher fees, worse liquidity, and no real advantages, users won’t switch. That’s why every crypto project needs to define its niche early and make it explicit. We figured this out quickly and focused on Tier 3 tokens instead of trying to compete on Tier 1 assets. Transparency is also about clarifying risks. If an exchange is non-custodial and a licensed custodian holds funds, it’s not enough to mention this in the docs — you have to explain why it matters. Experienced users know the difference between custodians, which ones are reliable and which ones might disappear along with their funds. If this isn’t addressed clearly, it raises red flags. In crypto, people don’t trust brands as much as they trust technical implementations. The more precisely you explain how things work, the more likely users are to take your project seriously. 2. Security and Regulation 2. Security and Regulation Cryptocurrency security isn’t just about protecting user funds — it’s about making sure users believe you won’t disappear with their money. How this is achieved depends on whether the project is DeFi-based or centralized, as each operates under different security models and user expectations. DeFi: Code as the Only Guarantee DeFi: Code as the Only Guarantee DeFi: Code as the Only Guarantee In DeFi, code is law, and security relies on open-source transparency and smart contract audits. Major protocols have their contracts audited by specialized firms like CertiK. It’s expensive, but users won’t trust a project without an audit. If the team is unknown and lacks a track record, an audit is often the only way to prove that the code isn’t riddled with vulnerabilities. However, even audits aren’t foolproof. Exploits still happen because once a contract is deployed, it can’t be patched, and attackers get more sophisticated over time. DeFi projects must go beyond audits and build security measures into their architecture. For example, they can implement withdrawal limits or emergency shutdown mechanisms to reduce damage in case of an exploit. Centralized Platforms: Licenses or Trust? Centralized Platforms: Licenses or Trust? DeFi projects rely on code for security – сentralized platforms rely on legal and institutional protections. Ideally, they should be licensed. But here’s the catch: licensed exchanges typically only cover spot trading and normally don’t offer the full range of features that users are seeking out. As a result, many centralized exchanges partner with third-party custodians for fund storage. Doing this allows them to minimize risks since user funds aren’t controlled directly by the exchange but are held by regulated custodial services. A centralized platform not having a license or a trusted custodian is a major red flag for users. In Short: In Short: In Short: DeFi projects rely on audits and transparent code for security. Centralized platforms need licenses or trusted custodians to gain user trust. If a project doesn’t clearly explain its security measures, users will assume it’s unsafe. DeFi projects rely on audits and transparent code for security. DeFi projects rely on audits and transparent code for security. DeFi projects rely on audits and transparent code for security. Centralized platforms need licenses or trusted custodians to gain user trust. Centralized platforms need licenses or trusted custodians to gain user trust. Centralized platforms need licenses or trusted custodians to gain user trust. If a project doesn’t clearly explain its security measures, users will assume it’s unsafe. If a project doesn’t clearly explain its security measures, users will assume it’s unsafe. If a project doesn’t clearly explain its security measures, users will assume it’s unsafe. 3. Real People Behind the Business 3. Real People Behind the Business The crypto industry remains one of the most anonymous spaces. Many projects operate without known teams or public leaders, which might be convenient for founders but doesn’t help build trust. When a project has no recognizable face, users are left with more questions than answers: — Who is behind this? — Will it still exist a year from now? — Can it be trusted? Anyone with crypto as the main occupation doesn’t rely on flashy websites or big promises. They look for people who stand behind the product and take responsibility for the results. Being open creates trust. A visible founder makes the project seem more credible. Engaging in podcasts, answering community questions, and explaining key decisions fosters confidence. People see a real person behind it — not just another anonymous, faceless operation. Building a personal brand doesn’t mean running a YouTube channel or aggressively marketing yourself. Sometimes, staying active in the community, participating in open AMA (Ask Me Anything) sessions, and speaking at industry events is more than enough. A simple rule: if you’re not afraid to show yourself, you have something tangible to share. 4. Technical Implementation 4. Technical Implementation In crypto, security is not just a feature. It’s a fundamental requirement for a project's survival. Users don’t take platforms at their word; they analyze how their funds are stored and how well the underlying mechanisms are protected. One of the key questions is: **Where are the funds stored? \ If a platform is centralized but non-custodial, users need to know exactly who holds their assets. For example, mentioning the name won't be enough if an exchange relies on a licensed custodian. It’s essential to explain what this means, including what licenses the custodian holds, its track record, and who operates it. Technical aspects also matter. Users closely examine how the platform's infrastructure is set up: — What risk management mechanisms are in place? — How reliable and user-friendly is the exchange API? — Does the platform have access to liquidity from major exchanges? The more transparent the technical implementation, the fewer doubts users have. When they see that a platform does not have direct access to their funds, that a licensed custodian manages assets, and that the project focuses purely on the technology — this builds trust. Remember, transparency in technical implementation is not a marketing buzzword; it’s a necessity. Crypto projects with closed, opaque storage and operational schemes inevitably raise red flags, and users vote against them with their wallets. Trust in crypto isn’t built on bold promises — it’s earned through real actions, transparency, and technological reliability. Unlike traditional fintech products, crypto users analyze risks themselves, assess the technical side, and deeply understand how platforms work. This sets a high bar for startups but also creates an opportunity to stand out through marketing and a thoughtful approach to building trust. The formula is: Transparent communication + Security and regulation + Real people behind the project + Technical implementation. The formula is: Transparent communication + Security and regulation + Real people behind the project + Technical implementation. The formula is: Transparent communication + Security and regulation + Real people behind the project + Technical implementation. If all variables align, you win. I've tested all of this in my own products, and the key takeaway is simple: you can’t “sell” a crypto product if it doesn’t pass users’ scrutiny for honesty, security, and real value. If users see nothing but a sleek landing page and marketing buzzwords, they’ll vote with their wallets and move on to something that works.

Here's What No One Tells You About Launching a Crypto Startup

Deepfake Porn is Ruining Lives—Can Blockchain Help Stop It?

The Moment I Forgot It Was a Machine

Stories, News & Mentions about CLEARLY

Clearly’s Stories on HackerNoon

Clearly's News & Mentions