Editorial Policy

Sourcing, in one paragraph

Trade values and demand ratings are transcribed from FantasyBlox on a stated date; dealer prices, rarity and type come from a wiki listing with the Beli figures cross-checked between both; permanent values, demand tiers and every verdict are derived arithmetically from those inputs. The full valuation process sets out which category each number falls into and why one source is used rather than an average.

Two kinds of error, handled differently

Separating these matters, because only one of them is something we can fix.

Transcription errors

A number here does not match the source it came from. This is our mistake, it is objectively checkable, and it gets corrected as soon as it is confirmed. No judgement call and no waiting for a review cycle.

Disagreement with the source

The number here matches the source, but you believe the source is wrong. This is not a transcription error, and it will not be silently overridden: changing a figure to something no published list says would leave the site quoting a number that came from nowhere. Reports like this are recorded, and if the source stays out of step with what traders are actually doing, the honest response is to say so on the page or change which source we follow. Both of which are visible decisions.

Sending a correction

Corrections are read and acted on, and there is no form, queue or account system behind them, the contact page lists the single route.

• Name the fruit and the number. "Kitsune demand should be 9, not 10" is actionable. "Some values look off" is not, however accurate it may be.
• Say where you are reading the correct figure. A pointer to a published list lets the disagreement be settled by looking rather than by arguing.
• Expect a visible outcome or none at all. An accepted value correction appears in the dated update log with the old and new number. Nothing gets changed quietly.

No response-time promise is made here, because a single maintainer cannot honour a service commitment and one that gets broken is worse than none.

Independence

Nobody pays for placement on this site. There is no advertising, no sponsorship, no affiliate arrangement, no paid review, and no commercial relationship with any trading service, marketplace, Discord server or value tracker, including the tracker whose figures are transcribed here, which is credited because it is the source, not because of any arrangement.

Nothing on the site is boosted or suppressed for anyone's benefit. Where the site makes a recommendation rather than stating a fact. The fruit-selection guide is the only page that does. It is labelled as opinion and carries the case against each pick, because a recommendation with no downside listed is advertising with the disclosure removed.

Independence from Roblox and the Blox Fruits developers is a separate matter, covered on the non-affiliation statement: there is no relationship of any kind, and this site speaks for nobody but its maintainer. What that maintainer will and will not claim is set out on who maintains this site.

AI use

Pages on this site are drafted with AI assistance and reviewed before publishing. That is disclosed rather than hidden because it changes what you should check: the failure mode of AI-drafted reference content is confident invention, so the specific safeguard applied here is that no number appears without a named source or a stated derivation.

Where a figure could not be confirmed, the page says so instead of filling the gap. The unranked fruits on the tier list and the unconfirmed mastery requirements in the awakening guide are both examples of that rule being applied rather than worked around.