There are tons of questions related to cryptocurrencies which are off-topic on crypto.stackexchange - e.g. about retrieving access to a wallet, choosing whether to invest in a cryptocurrency, generic questions about fees in cryptocurrencies, etc. Usually, these questions are closed quickly with a dedicated explanation, often of the form "questions about cryptocurrencies are off-topic; only questions about the cryptography aspects of cryptocurrencies are on-topic".

Wouldn't it be appropriate, given the large volume of such questions, to have a community-specific reason for closing cryptocurrency-related questions? This could give a quick pointer to users to whom the difference between "crypto(graphy)" and "crypto(currency)" is not clear, with examples of typical off-topic questions (should I invest, where is my wallet, how to use this cryptocurrency, etc) versus on-topic questions (questions about security analysis of blockchain components, cryptographic primitives used in a cryptocurrency, etc).

I understand that these questions technically already fall under the "off-topic" flag given the scope of the website, but I wonder whether a dedicated explanation for this very common situation could be helpful for the many people who have a prior belief that any cryptocurrency question should be on-topic, and who will not necessarily take the time to dig into the real scope of this site.

  • $\begingroup$ Some sites use some meta-questions like Why I'm sent here. This question and the answer can be used like this. $\endgroup$ – kelalaka Mar 10 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ This could be a good alternative! I guess this is appropriate when there already exists a close reason (community-specific or not) for a question, but pointing to this meta-question would help clarify common misunderstandings? I'm not 100% confident about what the scope of community-specific reasons is supposed to be (e.g. why is there a community-specific reason for programming questions instead of using the off-topic flag plus a pointer to a similar meta question?) $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Mar 10 at 11:59
  • $\begingroup$ I'm certainly not against this, but I've two buts: we're only allowed so many site specific off topic reasons. The other one is that I'm not sure which site to refer to as Bitcoin and Ethereum now don't accept any generic questions anymore. This may also stop us from migrating questions by the way, in case you're wondering. It's very hard for us to see if something is on topic on those sites. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Mar 10 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ First but: is there a hard limit, or is it rather an incitation to remain within reasonable bounds? Second but: I understand that this is annoying (I've checked related questions before asking mine, and indeed this redirection issue is discussed, e.g. here and here). But would that be different from the current strategy of closing without redirection? $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Mar 10 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Community specific close reasons are supposed to be standard templates for common closure reasons. In our last vote on meta we decided that we wanted the current three to be our three. Note that each of them already does what was suggested, namely they link to a meta question for details. I will have to look more into our current closure statistics to see whether all are used and / or we have objectively enough cryptocurrency questions to make a case for a fourth reason. $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Mar 13 at 9:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now that my laptop is back from repairs, I can finally look into providing the data needed for this question and initiate the optimal follow-up steps :) $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Mar 16 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ An initial check revealed that at least 15 questions closed in the last 90 days mention cryptocurrencies in the close comments. That close rate is roughly on-par with our programming questions close reason. You can check the data yourself here (requires 10k rep) $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Mar 20 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ Further consultation with the other mods yielded a decent chance of getting a fourth reason. I have initiated the process. $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Mar 20 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for looking into this! $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Mar 22 at 18:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .