Plumb
C-

crypto

Coin Bureau

Independently owned (co-founded by Nic Puckrin and Guy Turner); no parent company disclosed

Editorial reviews Free to read Visit Coin Bureau ↗

Polished crypto education with transparent 0-5 scorecards, but it earns affiliate commissions from the same exchanges it ranks and sells paid review coverage, so its independence rests on a self-stated promise rather than a firewall.

What it's really for A crypto education brand; it rates exchanges, monetized by affiliate commissions and paid memberships.

What our grade covers The grade on this page is about its 5-category crypto exchange scores, not everything the site does.

Medium Scoring Confidence Mostly sourced, but a detail or two still needs a primary source, so the grade could shift slightly.

Follow the money

Revenue comes primarily from exchanges and crypto services via affiliate/referral commissions on users who sign up and trade through Coin Bureau's links, plus paid memberships and a fee-based review/press-release service; it states paying or submitting "does not guarantee a positive review" and that affiliate links don't change its assessment, but those same companies are both the subjects of its rankings and the source of its commissions.

Source →
Operating since
2017 (9 years) · source
What it costs you
Free to read The reviews are free to read.
How they make money
A crypto education and review brand (blog plus 2M+ subscriber YouTube channel) that rates exchanges on a 5-category 0-5 scorecard while monetizing through affiliate commissions, sign-up referral deals, paid memberships, and a paid review/press-release service.
What they do
Reviews and rates crypto exchanges, wallets, and projects across five weighted categories (security, trust/transparency, fees, product breadth, ease of use) and publishes a numeric overall score alongside long-form educational content.
What to watch for
It does not appear to run independent hands-on, funded testing of each exchange; by its own disclosure many review links are affiliate links that pay it a commission, and it charges projects a fee for review/press-release coverage, which critics say creates a conflict for a self-described "unbiased" reviewer.
Composite score
2.00 / 5.00 → grade C-

How the grade was reached

Independence · 30% weight 1 / 5

Does the site take money from the very entities it ranks? Pay-for-placement, vendor-funded data, and affiliate commissions all pull this down. The less the ranking can be bought, the higher the score.

Evidence basis · 30% weight 2 / 5

What is the ranking actually built on? Hands-on testing scores highest, then verified first-hand reviews, then opinion or popularity surveys and self-reported figures, then pay-to-rank, which scores lowest.

Method transparency · 20% weight 3 / 5

Is the methodology published, specific, and reproducible? Can a reader see how a given rank was reached, or is it a black box?

Conflict disclosure · 10% weight 3 / 5

Are commercial relationships, sponsorships, and affiliate arrangements disclosed clearly and near the rankings themselves, rather than buried?

Manipulation resistance · 10% weight 2 / 5

How hard is it to game? Controls against fake reviews, solicited reviews, and vendor gaming raise this; an open box anyone can stuff lowers it.

Evidence

Compare with others

Others reviewing crypto (compare all →)

← Back to the Report Card