Which records should anchor a Messari profile?
The source record shows whether a profile fact is supported, current, and approved. We begin by mapping the public information your team wants represented, rather than drafting around unsupported claims.
Our working record uses 4 fields: project fact, source, approving owner, and current action. Each item receives 1 of 3 labels: ready, needs confirmation, or awaiting platform response. That makes unresolved details visible before they enter a submission.
We group source material into 2 types:
- Official project sources: approved descriptions, product details, and links.
- Supporting references: material your team supplies to clarify a specific fact.
The review checks names, descriptions, organizational details, product status, and official destinations. You identify which statements are approved for external use. We flag mismatches and ask the relevant owner to resolve them. We do not turn plans into claims about existing product features.
For a broader platform plan, start with listings and verification. This Messari workstream focuses on research-platform information and coverage records. A tracker submission is a separate task, even when both use the same approved project facts.
What makes a Messari submission ready for coordination?
The onboarding file reveals whether the project facts are consistent enough to prepare. A named internal approver and traceable sources reduce avoidable clarification during submission work.
Before kickoff, assemble the current project description, organizational details, product status, and official links. Add relevant existing profile information and explain what should change. For each requested change, include its source and the person authorized to confirm it. If two public sources disagree, identify the correct version before asking us to proceed.
Our review marks each fact as ready, unclear, or out of scope. We return a short list of questions rather than silently choosing between conflicting statements. That gives your team a practical decision queue. Once approved, the information becomes the working basis for the agreed profile activity.
Some teams coordinate Messari alongside CoinMarketCap listing support or CoinGecko listing support. Those platform requests remain distinct. Use one shared source set where facts overlap, then track each platform’s submission and response separately. A listing on one service does not substitute for a research-platform profile review.
What does the recurring Messari coverage report show?
The report records visible profile activity, coverage status, and work still awaiting action. It gives your team an operational view of the profile without presenting a request as a published change.
We structure the report in 3 parts: observed profile state, submitted or requested updates, and pending decisions. Each update record retains 4 details: the item, its source, its status, and the next owner. That format helps your team distinguish what changed from what remains in progress.
| Report area | Team use |
|---|---|
| Profile state | Check visible project information against approved facts |
| Update record | Review what was prepared, submitted, or left open |
| Coverage status | Track activity visible on the relevant platform |
At the agreed reporting cadence, your team reviews open items and confirms any new facts. We record the status of agreed work and flag information that needs correction. If a detail has not appeared on the profile, the report keeps it separate from completed work. For projects tracking several directories, other crypto tracker listings can be scoped as another workstream.
How does profile work move from source review to reporting?
The work record follows 4 checkpoints: intake, fact review, profile coordination, and reporting. Each checkpoint leaves a clear handoff, so your team can see what is needed next.
At intake, you share official materials and name the person who can approve project facts. During fact review, we compare requested information with the supplied sources and return unresolved questions. Your team confirms or corrects those details before we prepare agreed profile work.
For coordination, we organize the approved information and manage the submissions or updates included in scope. We keep a record of what was prepared and its current status. Reporting then summarizes visible activity and remaining actions. The cadence is agreed for the engagement, rather than assumed in advance.
Your team can make this sequence easier to run by assigning one owner for approvals and sending changes with supporting sources. Keep project description, product status, and official links together. If your needs include a separate evidence task, such as circulating supply verification, define it separately. Profile maintenance does not replace that verification work.
Which Messari decisions sit beyond the profile work?
The boundary is visible in the status record: we manage information quality and agreed submissions, while Messari makes its own review decisions. Your team can control the accuracy of supplied facts, the approval process, and the materials submitted.
Before starting, confirm 3 items internally: the source of truth for project details and the person authorized to approve them. Also name the route for answering clarification requests. Keep evidence for statements that may need support. Mark planned capabilities as plans, not current product features.
Messari decides whether to approve submissions or include editorial coverage. The platform controls how profiles appear in its search and AI-generated answers. We cannot promise those decisions or placements; we commit to the profile work and reporting agreed for the engagement.
If the platform requests clarification, your team reviews the question and confirms the accurate response. We can then coordinate the agreed follow-up and record its status. This creates a review trail without treating a submitted change as an accepted or published change.
Where does Messari fit in a wider platform plan?
The platform map separates research coverage from tracker listings and verification requests. That distinction helps teams assign owners and avoid treating one platform’s record as proof of another’s status.
Start with the task you need resolved: organize a research profile, update existing information, or coordinate a separate listing. Then note each relevant platform, the current profile state, and the source facts that require approval. This is enough to outline a practical scope without duplicating the fact review.
For adjacent work, review CryptoRank listing support or return to listings and verification. If a project has changed its name or contract, migration and rebranding updates may belong in a separate workstream. We will identify those boundaries before submissions begin.
Send GeoMarketing Experts your official materials, the Messari profile or coverage issue, and the contact who can verify project facts. We will review the source record, identify missing information, and propose the profile scope and reporting cadence.
How it works
- Send the source materialsShare official project information, the relevant profile details, and the contact authorized to confirm facts.
- Review the fact recordWe flag conflicting, missing, or outdated information and return questions for your team to resolve.
- Coordinate agreed profile workWe organize approved facts, manage in-scope submissions or updates, and record their status.
- Read the coverage reportYou receive recurring summaries of visible profile activity, coverage status, and pending actions.
Frequently asked questions
Which project files should we send for the first review?
Send the current project description, official links, organizational and product facts, and any existing Messari profile details. Include sources for claims you want represented and name one person who can approve them. The 4-field working record then connects each fact to its source, owner, and next action.
Can your team prepare an update to an existing Messari profile?
Yes. We compare the existing profile with the current facts and sources your team approves. We then coordinate the agreed update and record whether it is prepared, submitted, or still awaiting a decision. You can use the same review to identify details that need correction before any new submission.
How will we distinguish submitted work from a published change?
The update record keeps those states separate. Reports identify what was prepared or submitted and what is visible on the profile. Your team can review the source, status, and next owner for each open item. Do not treat a request as confirmation that the platform changed its record.
Does a Messari profile replace our CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap listing?
No. These are separate platform workflows, even when they use overlapping project facts. We can coordinate the information set across requests, but each platform has its own profile or listing process. The scope should name each requested platform and track its work separately.
What can your team commit to on Messari?
We can commit to the agreed profile preparation, submission or update coordination, and recurring reporting. Messari controls its own submission review, editorial inclusion, and profile appearance in search or AI-generated answers. Those platform decisions and visibility are not promised as service outcomes.
When should we expect the first status report?
The first reporting point is agreed after the onboarding review, once the team has confirmed the facts needed for the scoped work. Reports then follow the cadence set for the engagement. Each report records visible activity, open questions, and the next action owner.
Tell us about your project
Answer four quick questions and a manager will send you a plan, timing and a price range within the hour. Everything stays confidential.
Loading the form…