How cryptocard.guide distinguishes scores, rankings, filters, confidence and unresolved evidence.
Topic definitions
Definitions in this topic
50
Affiliate neutrality
Also seen as Partner links never affect rankings · commercial neutrality
Affiliate neutrality means commercial relationships, tracked links and potential compensation are kept outside scores, rankings, recommendation eligibility and inclusion in top-card views.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A comparison becomes misleading when better compensation improves placement. Keeping the commercial route separate allows users to assess the result independently of how the site may be paid.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide separates affiliate metadata and routing from every scoring and ranking input. A card without a partner link remains eligible under the same product and evidence rules.
Availability & eligibility is the score category for documented geographic access, signup requirements and the clarity of identity or account conditions needed to obtain and use a card.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A good product is not useful to someone who cannot access it. At the same time, incomplete country evidence must not be rewritten as a confirmed prohibition.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses reviewed access facts and preserves unknown or qualified states. The category does not guarantee that an individual application will be accepted by the provider.
The Cashback scenario is a ranking lens that emphasizes practical purchase-reward value, including accessible rates, conditions, caps and relevant charges, across cards eligible for that use case.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A large advertised maximum may rank below a smaller accessible rate once qualification costs, limited spend bands or payout restrictions are taken into account.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide applies the published Cashback lens to approved facts among cards eligible for this ranking lens. It remains a comparative view, not a personalized or guaranteed recommendation.
A category rating is one of seven stable 0–100 assessments used to explain Overall Score. Scenario lenses use the same categories but calculate scenario-adjusted contributions from approved facts.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Two cards with similar Overall Scores can have very different strengths. Category ratings reveal those trade-offs without asking one headline number to explain the whole product.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide calculates the seven fixed Overall category ratings from approved normalized facts. Scenario views preserve those category names while showing their adjusted contributions separately.
Also seen as commission · referral payment to the publisher · partner compensation
Commission is compensation paid to a publisher or referrer after a qualifying action. It is a commercial arrangement and is not necessarily part of the benefit received by the reader.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Separating compensation from the user offer prevents a payment to the publisher from being presented as extra card value for the applicant or cardholder.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps commission data in its commercial policy layer and excludes it from rankings, scores, Pros & Cons and top-list eligibility. Applicable disclosures remain visible.
Also seen as provider infrastructure · company and partners
Company & infrastructure is the score category for documented legal entities and the named issuer, programme, payment and banking roles supporting a card product.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The consumer brand may not issue or operate every layer of the card. Naming the relevant roles helps expose dependencies without treating corporate familiarity as proof of safety.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide evaluates approved role and infrastructure facts under the published methodology. Source count, affiliate status and brand prominence do not create automatic points.
Also seen as source-confidence band · evidence confidence label · confidence display band
A confidence level is the displayed band assigned to source confidence: High, Medium, Low or Unknown. It summarizes evidence coverage, reliability and freshness rather than product quality or expected performance.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The band helps readers spot profiles that need more caution, but it cannot replace examination of missing, stale or conflicting fields. A high source count alone does not determine the level.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide derives the label from its evidence assessment and displays it as source confidence, never bare product confidence. The level has no direct numerical effect on card scoring.
Also seen as source conflict · conflicting evidence · conflicting terms · sources disagree
Conflicting means credible evidence supports different answers for the same fact and cryptocard.guide has not resolved the disagreement. It is neither a usable confirmed value nor a generic missing-data state.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A disagreement can affect cost, access, rewards or control. Showing it prevents cryptocard.guide from selecting the more favourable answer without a defensible resolution.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide shows the conflict and applies conservative treatment. A critical unresolved conflict can block an Overall Score or ranking position until human review resolves or explicitly handles it.
Cost efficiency is the score category for approved card and provider charges that can affect ordinary use. External blockchain gas and bridging costs remain outside this card-cost category.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A product can advertise one zero fee while another applicable charge remains. The category looks across documented cost layers without converting missing prices into free use.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses approved applicable provider costs and conservative unknown-data rules. Network gas, bridge costs and third-party ATM or checkout charges stay separately identified and score-neutral where required.
Also seen as soft context · selected country · country filter
Country context adjusts relevance conservatively, while a hard filter removes cards that fail a selected requirement. Missing country evidence alone does not create a confirmed geographic exclusion.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Treating every unknown country record as unavailable can hide potentially usable cards. Treating context as a guarantee can create the opposite and equally misleading conclusion.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide excludes for country only on an explicit negative or omission from a complete supported-country list. Ordinary hard filters retain their separate confirmed-match rules.
Custody & control is the score category for who controls relevant assets and keys, where provider dependence begins and whether the user retains control until payment.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Two products described as wallet-based can expose users to different account, signing and settlement boundaries. The control path matters more than the marketing label alone.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide relies on approved structured control facts and keeps unresolved boundaries visible. Self-custody wording alone does not establish no KYC, unrestricted transfers or complete payment control.
Also seen as eligible cards · of total · ranking population
The eligible ranking set is the group of cards currently allowed to receive a public position for the active Overall or scenario lens within the stated comparison scope.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A rank such as third of twenty is not comparable with third of five. The population clarifies what the position actually describes and which profiles were excluded.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide states each position within the current eligible comparison set. A public profile can remain visible without being allowed to receive a rank for every lens.
Everyday usability is the score category for practical payment access, including the card network, supported formats, mobile wallet compatibility and confirmed cash-withdrawal capability.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A strong reward has limited value when the available card format or payment route does not fit ordinary use. Usability facts therefore remain separate from reward economics.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses confirmed usability capabilities and does not infer support from a logo, network name or marketing phrase. Unknown features do not earn the same treatment as documented support.
Also seen as source → fact → profile → score · claim trace
Evidence lineage is the trace from a source record through an approved fact and normalized profile to the public statement, filter result or score that uses it.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A visible claim is easier to trust and correct when its evidence path is preserved. Lineage also shows which outputs must change when a reviewed fact changes.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide preserves the source-to-output path for important claims and every numerical scoring input. Public copy cannot promote an extracted but unapproved fact into usable evidence.
Also seen as filter · hard filter · required match · narrow the list
A filter narrows the catalogue by requiring a stated match. A hard filter removes cards that do not satisfy the condition; it does not merely increase or reduce their ranking weight.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Filters can remove a potentially useful card from view, so their meaning and unknown-data behaviour must be clear. A ranking lens instead changes the order of cards that remain.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses a hard filter only for an explicit selected requirement. Unknown values do not satisfy a requirement for confirmed support; Country context follows its narrower explicit-negative rule instead of ordinary blanket filtering.
Also seen as money movement · receive/send/payout capabilities
Funding & transfers is the score category for confirmed ways to receive, move and pay out value, together with their direction, coverage, costs, limits, timing and scope.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A supported asset name does not prove that money can travel both ways or reach the card balance. The usable route and destination determine the real capability.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide scores approved direction-specific routes and their practical constraints. Unverified receive, send or payout support is not promoted into a complete money-movement capability.
Also seen as Self-custody scenario · Custody + usable rails
The Funds control scenario ranks eligible cards by the practical control path, combining custody boundaries with usable funding, conversion, transfer, fee and spending evidence.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A self-custody label does not establish that assets can conveniently reach a card purchase or leave through a desired route. Practical control includes the whole usable path.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses approved control and route facts under the published lens. It does not award a result solely because a provider uses self-custody language.
Also seen as Data incomplete · research gap · model gap · Update pending · not assessed by cryptocard.guide
An incomplete or research-gap state means cryptocard.guide has not yet captured, reviewed or modeled enough information for a particular field or profile. It describes publication work, not a provider's confirmed product limitation.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Without this distinction, missing internal coverage can be mistaken for a fee, feature or route the provider does not offer. The gap may also affect score or ranking eligibility.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps the gap explicit, identifies its affected area and avoids turning it into a provider fact. Material unresolved gaps can suppress public scores, ranks or specific claims.
Also seen as decision aid · not a personalized recommendation
Independent research compares documented product facts using a stated methodology. It is a decision aid, not individualized financial advice or a guarantee of approval, safety, value or future performance.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A transparent comparison can narrow choices but cannot know every user's circumstances or control provider decisions and future product changes. Final suitability still requires individual judgment.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide explains evidence, trade-offs and methodology without promising outcomes. Scores and scenarios remain comparative tools, and commercial links do not convert them into personalized recommendations.
Also seen as Source checked · Latest profile check · checked date · review date
Last checked records when relevant evidence was most recently examined. Last reviewed should identify a distinct human review event only when that timestamp exists; the two dates are not interchangeable.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Terms can change after either date, and a recent source check does not prove that every profile field was re-approved. Clear labels prevent freshness from being overstated.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide displays the actual available timestamp and uses “Last checked” for evidence checks. It does not relabel a check date as a human review date or build freshness from a site deployment time.
The Low fees scenario is a ranking lens that gives greater importance to approved cost levels and pricing clarity than to rewards, optional extras or promotional benefits.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
One zero-fee claim can hide other applicable charges. A cost-focused view must consider the relevant route while keeping unknown pricing visible rather than assuming it is free.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide applies the published Low fees lens, including its category weights and limited use-case-specific treatment. External network costs remain separate, and unknown prices receive no favourable assumption.
Also seen as normalized fact · comparable profile · reviewed profile
A normalized fact converts provider-specific wording, units or categories into a consistent field that can be compared across cards without changing the approved underlying meaning.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Providers can describe similar fees or capabilities differently. Normalization prevents wording alone from creating a false difference while preserving genuine scope and evidence distinctions.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide compares and scores normalized approved facts, never raw marketing phrases. Unknown values remain unknown, and normalization does not grant approval to an unreviewed claim.
Also seen as not publicly disclosed · not stated in public sources · undisclosed
Not disclosed means the reviewed public sources do not state the value cryptocard.guide needs. It describes a public evidence gap, not proof that a fee, condition, feature or restriction does not exist.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
An undisclosed cost or condition can materially change real-world value. The label preserves that uncertainty without converting silence into a favourable or negative product claim.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide shows the missing value explicitly and gives it no positive credit. A not-disclosed field cannot support a positive claim or pass a hard filter requiring a confirmed value.
Also seen as not confirmed · unconfirmed · not established by public evidence
Not publicly confirmed means a capability may exist in an app, private account flow or support response, but approved public evidence does not establish it for cryptocard.guide's public profile.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Private or account-specific visibility can differ by user, region or programme. cryptocard.guide avoids turning a capability that someone may see privately into a general public promise.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps the capability visible as unconfirmed and makes no positive support assumption. It cannot pass a hard filter requiring confirmed availability or become a positive public card claim.
Also seen as ranking unavailable · no ranking position · ranking eligibility pending
Not ranked means the card has no public position for the current ranking lens. It may still have an Overall Score or remain visible as a public profile.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A missing position does not automatically mean the product is unavailable or poor. It identifies a cryptocard.guide ranking boundary that can differ between Overall and scenario lenses.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps the profile visible after cards eligible for the active ranking and shows the applicable reason. No internal scenario preview becomes a public position when the required gate is not approved.
Also seen as score unavailable · no public Overall Score · score pending
Not scored means cryptocard.guide does not display an approved public Overall Score for the card. The profile can remain public so users can inspect reviewed facts, sources, gaps and conflicts.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A visible card page is not proof that the profile has passed cryptocard.guide's score gate. Keeping the page available still lets users assess what is known and what remains unresolved.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide suppresses the public Overall Score and prevents any internal preview from passing a minimum-score filter or displacing an eligible card. The page must explain the material reason for the status.
Also seen as unverified · claim not verified · value not verified
Not verified means a claim or value exists, but cryptocard.guide does not yet have enough approved evidence to use it as a confirmed public fact. The label does not mean the claim is false.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A plausible provider, app or support claim should not become a comparison advantage before cryptocard.guide can support it. The distinction protects users without presenting uncertainty as a confirmed negative.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide excludes the claim from positive public statements and from hard-filter passes that require confirmation. It remains visible as an evidence gap until approved evidence supports or rejects it.
Also seen as qualifying spend · payment count · deadline · settled transaction
Offer requirements are the actions and timing conditions a reader must satisfy to receive a stated referral or promotional benefit, including any settlement, refund or reversal rules.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
An offer can be real but difficult to earn when important conditions are hidden. Clear requirements make the difference between potential and reasonably attainable value visible.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide publishes only approved offer terms, keeps their commercial value outside card scoring and avoids implying success before every qualifying condition has been met.
Also seen as primary source · official terms · official fee page · provider documentation
An official source is information published by the provider, issuer or another organisation responsible for the relevant product role. It may include terms, agreements, fee schedules, help pages or programme documents.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Official provenance is usually stronger for product rules than commentary, yet official pages can be incomplete, outdated or inconsistent. Applicability to the correct programme still needs review.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide records provenance, scope and check date for official evidence. Official status does not automatically approve a fact, resolve a conflict or add points to a card score.
Also seen as Overall · Overall ranking · primary card rating · balanced card rating
Overall Score is cryptocard.guide's balanced 0–100 comparison score, built from seven category ratings derived from approved card facts. It supports default catalogue exploration; it is not a customer rating, safety grade or universal recommendation.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The score offers one consistent starting point across cards, while keeping the underlying categories available for inspection. A different use case can produce a different scenario order.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide displays Overall Score only for score-eligible profiles and uses its underlying value for the default Top cards order. Source confidence, affiliate status and commission are not score inputs.
A partner link is a disclosed outbound route that may be official, affiliate or referral-based. Tracking, compensation, access conditions and reader benefits are separate properties that must be stated when applicable.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The destination can look like an ordinary product link even when tracking or compensation applies. Disclosure lets the reader understand the relationship before choosing to continue.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide labels the applicable link type and disclosure without assuming every partner route is compensated. Link availability, tracking and commission never improve a card's score or rank.
Also seen as strengths and trade-offs · Best for · Less suited to
Pros & Cons are structured explanations of a card's strengths and trade-offs, derived from reviewed facts and the active comparison context rather than copied promotional claims.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A score alone cannot show who benefits from a feature or where a condition creates friction. Balanced explanations keep material drawbacks visible beside advantages.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide produces conservative Pros & Cons from approved profile facts and score signals. Affiliate status never creates a pro, and missing or conflicting evidence remains visible.
A ranking position is a card's place within the eligible comparison set for one named lens and current catalogue snapshot. It is not a permanent position across every context.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The displayed number changes when the lens, eligible population or approved data changes. A position is meaningful only with its scenario and comparison set attached.
How we treat it
On detail pages, cryptocard.guide uses the all-countries eligible catalogue; catalogue views may reflect active context and filters. Every position retains its lens and comparison scope.
Also seen as reviewed fact · approved fact · reviewed evidence · source-backed fact
A reviewed fact is a normalized product statement that has passed human review against its evidence before public use. Reviewed evidence is the source material and reasoning examined during that decision.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Review separates captured claims from facts safe enough to support comparison copy, filters or scoring. It also preserves caveats when the evidence is incomplete or conditional.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide bases public product claims on approved reviewed facts with traceable evidence. Review status does not mean terms are permanent, conflict-free or a guarantee of provider performance.
Rewards value is the score category for usable purchase rewards after documented rates, access conditions, caps, exclusions and relevant costs are considered. A headline maximum alone is insufficient.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The rate a typical eligible user can reach may differ sharply from the advertised maximum. Conditions and caps can reduce the practical value of an otherwise large percentage.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide scores approved purchase-reward economics. A limited risk-capped Earn utility factor can contribute to Overall, while the Cashback scenario receives no Earn credit; referral and affiliate terms remain separate.
Also seen as scenario · use-case ranking · scenario lens · recommendation view
Scenario ranking is the ordered list cryptocard.guide produces for one use case, such as Travel or Cashback. It uses scenario scores from the same approved facts and ranks only cards eligible for that lens.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A card that is balanced overall may not lead for a specific goal. Scenario ranking makes that trade-off visible without presenting the result as a personalized recommendation.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide applies filters first, then orders the remaining eligible cards by the selected scenario score. Each result belongs to a named lens and comparison set; it does not replace provider checks or individual judgment.
Also seen as use-case score · active scenario score · Cashback score · Travel score · Funds control score · Low fees score · Transfers score
A scenario score is cryptocard.guide's 0–100 ordering value for one card within a named use case. cryptocard.guide derives it from approved facts, shifts relevant category weights and adds narrowly bounded treatment for that use case.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The value explains why a card can move when the user changes goals. It should be read inside its named scenario, not as a replacement Overall Score or a universal product grade.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses the scenario score to order cards eligible for the selected scenario lens. Its displayed rows are scenario-adjusted contributions, and cryptocard.guide does not publish the score when scenario ranking eligibility is unavailable.
Also seen as score label · qualitative score label · Overall Score band · scenario score band · Excellent · Strong · Good · Moderate · Mixed · Weak
A score band is the qualitative label attached to a displayed cryptocard.guide score: Excellent, Strong, Good, Moderate, Mixed or Weak. It summarizes a numeric range, not customer sentiment or a guarantee of suitability.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The label makes a number faster to scan, but it can hide how close a score sits to a boundary. The active lens and underlying breakdown remain more informative.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide derives the band from the active displayed score and qualifies it as an Overall Score band or named scenario score band when context is not obvious. It has no independent scoring effect.
An Overall Score breakdown shows seven fixed category ratings. A scenario breakdown instead shows scenario-adjusted contributions from the same approved facts, making the active ranking lens visible.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The breakdown makes it possible to see whether costs, rewards, access or another dimension drives the result, rather than treating the final score as unexplained advice.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps the seven rows in a fixed order. Scenario views may change their weighted contributions, but they do not silently redefine the underlying approved card facts.
Also seen as data confidence · high confidence · medium confidence · low confidence · evidence confidence
Source confidence is cryptocard.guide's assessment of how completely, reliably and recently the available evidence supports a card profile. It measures evidence quality, not the card's safety, provider quality, score or likelihood of approval.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Two profiles can have similar visible facts but very different evidence coverage. Source confidence helps you judge how firmly cryptocard.guide can support the comparison and where further checking may be prudent.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide displays source confidence as evidence metadata. It is not a numerical product-quality input, source count alone does not determine it, and identity verification belongs to KYC rather than evidence quality.
Also seen as outdated · needs refresh · stale evidence · review window exceeded
Stale means previously reviewed evidence is no longer current enough for its intended use, or a material product dependency has changed since the last reliable check.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
An old value may still be correct, but presenting it as current can distort fees, access, rewards or risk. Freshness is especially important for rates and programme availability.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide marks the affected evidence for re-check and avoids silently reaffirming the previous value. Critical stale facts can block a public score or ranking position until reviewed.
Also seen as independent source · community source · supporting evidence · secondary source
A supporting source adds context or corroboration outside the principal official evidence set. It can include independent reporting, public community material or another relevant record with clear provenance.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Supporting evidence can reveal gaps or changes, but it may describe a different region, date or user experience. Critical fees, limits and access claims still require appropriate approval.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps supporting evidence identifiable and separate from approved critical product facts. It may prompt review or corroborate context but does not automatically authorize a public claim.
Also seen as Top Crypto Cards · default exploration view
The Top cards view is the catalogue's neutral starting point. It orders cards with an approved public Overall Score within the current comparison set and does not create a separate rating.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
The first card shown depends on the current eligible set and approved score snapshot. A scenario, filter or future evidence update can produce a different order.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide orders the current eligible catalogue by approved Overall Score. Commercial relationships and partner-link availability never change placement or inclusion.
Also seen as Best cards for transfers · transfer lens
The Transfers scenario ranks eligible cards by confirmed ways to receive value, send it externally and pay it out through fiat-facing routes, including practical route constraints.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A product can support deposits without supporting withdrawals or bank payouts. Direction, destination and route scope determine whether the transfer setup fits the intended use.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide uses approved direction-specific capabilities, fees, limits and timing. Unverified routes cannot pass a requirement or improve the published scenario position.
The Travel scenario is a ranking lens that emphasizes documented foreign-use costs, ATM access, geographic eligibility, payment usability and supporting card infrastructure.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A card useful at home can become expensive or inaccessible abroad. Travel value depends on several cost and access layers rather than one advertised FX percentage.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide ranks only cards eligible for the Travel lens and uses approved applicable facts. Merchant DCC and external ATM surcharges remain clearly separated from provider fees.
Also seen as unknown data · value unknown · unknown evidence state
Unknown is cryptocard.guide's fallback evidence state when no more specific approved reason explains a missing value. It never means zero, free, supported or unavailable, and cryptocard.guide does not fill the gap with a favourable assumption.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Treating an unknown fee as zero or an unknown feature as supported can reverse a comparison. The generic label should be used only when a more precise evidence-state reason is unavailable.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide keeps the field visible and applies conservative, scenario-sensitive treatment without a positive assumption. Unknown values do not pass a hard filter that requires confirmed support.
Also seen as Unknown is never a benefit · missing fields receive no positive credit
The unknown-data policy prevents an unconfirmed value from being treated as zero, free, supported or otherwise favourable. Treatment can differ by display, filter and scoring context.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Filling evidence gaps with optimistic assumptions can reverse rankings and filter results. Clear unknown states preserve uncertainty instead of rewarding the least documented product.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide never assumes an unknown is free, supported or favourable. It receives conservative, scenario-sensitive treatment and cannot pass a hard filter that requires confirmed support.
Also seen as unsupported · not supported · not offered · not available · confirmed negative
Unsupported is a confirmed negative: approved evidence shows that a feature, route, country or option is not offered for the stated scope. It is evidence of absence, not an absence of evidence.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A confirmed negative can legitimately exclude a card for a requirement or country rule. Treating it as unknown would hide useful evidence; treating an unknown as unsupported would invent a restriction.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide displays the exact approved negative and its scope. It may fail a relevant hard filter or country rule, but cryptocard.guide does not generalize a feature, route or regional negative beyond the evidence.
Also seen as referral reward · special offer · reader offer
A user bonus is a conditional benefit offered to the referred reader, such as a credit or reward after qualifying activity. It is separate from compensation paid to the referrer.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
A headline bonus may require spending, deposits or completed transactions within a deadline. The benefit should not be presented as automatic or confused with ongoing card rewards.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide states approved offer requirements beside the reader benefit and keeps it outside product scoring. Unknown or expired offer conditions cannot support a public value claim.
Also seen as category weight · input group · weighted check
A weight sets how strongly a defined category or check contributes to a score. A weighted component is the resulting contribution after that relative importance is applied.
Practical explanation
Why it matters
Changing weights can change an ordering even when every card fact stays the same. The weight therefore belongs to the methodology, not to a provider claim about its product.
How we treat it
cryptocard.guide publishes the role of weights in Methodology and keeps the calculation deterministic. Affiliate status, commission and editorial preference are not permitted weighting inputs.