How We Verify Figures

Primary Sources

For any claim involving a specific number, such as fee percentages, cashback tiers, referral payouts, leverage caps, volume, or all-time fees, we cite from primary sources first and secondary aggregators second. Specifically:

• Axiom official documentation (docs.axiom.trade), the authoritative source for fee tiers, cashback mechanics, referral rates, product names, and platform behavior.
• The Axiom app (axiom.trade), for real-time pricing and market data referenced by live-stat components throughout the site.
• On-chain data via DefiLlama, for fee revenue, volume, and category-share figures cross-referenced against the app and docs.
• Competitor platform documentation and DefiLlama listings (Photon, GMGN, Trojan, and others) for comparison figures, where that documentation exists and can be opened and read. See the note below on what happens when it cannot.
• Independent reporting for anything Axiom does not publish itself, above all the February 2026 support-tool incident. Where a claim rests on reporting, the outlet is named in the sentence that makes the claim, so ZachXBT's investigation and Blockworks' interview with the founders appear by name rather than as background fact.

Review Cadence

Every guide carries a Last Updated date in the byline. Pages covering time-sensitive figures (fee tiers, referral rates, volume comparisons) also carry a Last Verified date indicating the most recent manual data check, usually more recent than the content-edit date.

Getting started, fees, referral, and security carry the figures most likely to move, so they get looked at most often. Rather than advertise a cadence nobody outside this site can audit, the honest version is the date printed on the page: it records when a human last opened the primary source and compared it to what we published. If that date looks stale to you, treat the figure as stale and check the linked source yourself. Live data widgets are a separate case, since they pull fresh on every page load.

Limitations

Rates and figures in crypto markets change. The Last Verified date represents the last time a human manually confirmed the figure against a primary source. Between verification dates, figures may drift, particularly volume comparisons and category share, which shift as Axiom and its competitors report new fee data. Axiom's cashback-tier volume thresholds are not published by the company, so where we describe them we say so rather than inventing a number. There is no confirmed Axiom token or airdrop, so we never present the points program as a guarantee of future rewards. When accuracy matters for a decision you're about to make, always cross-check against the primary source linked from the article.

Competitor figures deserve their own caveat, because the sourcing there is uneven. Some terminals publish a fee page you can open and read, and those numbers go in as published rates. Others do not, or publish something that could not be reconciled with what users report paying. Our Photon comparison says on the page that Photon's own fee documentation could not be independently verified, and the GMGN comparison labels its fee figure a secondary-source estimate. Neither is presented as primary-sourced, because neither is. If a comparison page here does not tell you where a competitor's number came from, that is a defect worth reporting.

Reporting Outdated Figures

If you spot a figure on this site that looks out of date or wrong, please report it. The fastest path is a direct message to @Concept211 on X or an email via the About page. Include the URL, the figure, and the source you're comparing against. The target is a re-check and a fix within 48 hours. That is a target rather than a measured guarantee, and this site is one person, so a correction that needs new research can take longer.

Editorial Independence and Disclosure

Axiompedia earns through Axiom's referral program (see the About page for full disclosure). It does not decide which figures get published or how platforms come out in a comparison. Comparison figures come from each platform's own published documentation where such documentation exists and holds up; where it does not, the page says which source the number actually came from and how much weight it carries. When a competitor is stronger on a given dimension, we say so. Accurate beats favorable.

That standard applies to Axiom itself. In February 2026, the investigator ZachXBT published evidence that an Axiom employee had used an internal support dashboard to look up user wallet data. Axiom confirmed the conduct, said it had removed that employee's access to the tools involved, and said it would keep investigating. Axiom's statement and the reporting that followed both describe an insider misusing access rather than an attacker breaking in, and neither reported user funds or private keys being taken. What went on inside the company beyond its own statement is not something this site can verify. We cover the episode in our security guides because leaving it out would misrepresent the record.