Pool listings, reviews & methodology

Comparison methodology (internal standard)

• Economics first. Document effective pool fee mechanics, when deductions trigger, and payout paths (on-chain vs custodial assumptions) with dates.
• Operational proof. Pair marketing language with verifiable signals—public block history, Stratum endpoint availability, dashboard latency claims, and reproducible setup flows.
• Conflicts. MySoloPool articles disclose operator ownership up front; reviewers must log any personal farm exposure to avoid subtle bias.
• Refresh hygiene. Fee tables and screenshots receive timestamped updates or explicit stale notices (see editorial policy).

Long-form comparisons live in the solo mining blog—search there for annual roundups, hardware-specific posts, and annotated reviews.

Responsible directory submissions

When you submit MySoloPool to aggregator sites, provide accurate Stratum hosts, fee language matching the site, block explorer links, and maintenance contacts. Avoid automated blast submissions; prioritize mining analytics platforms and communities that verify pool metadata before publishing.

• Listings that allow operator-edited JSON or Stratum records—keep them synchronized with getting started.
• Regional communities (Bitaxe Discord groups, manufacturer forums) appreciate walkthrough threads with disclosure of your role.
• Encourage independent screenshots or short screen recordings from miners; those become stronger trust signals than duplicated press releases.

Community participation guidelines

• Disclose operator status (e.g., “MySoloPool team member”) before answering setup threads on Reddit or hardware Discords.
• Answer legitimacy questions by pointing to Trust Center, telemetry pages, and on-chain payouts—not emotional arguments.
• Never incentivize spammy backlink exchanges; relevance beats volume in mining verticals penalized by link schemes.