It starts with an application
Nobody joins the team because they are around a lot. It begins with a form: what they have done before, how much time they can give and when, what timezone they are in, what they actually know about crypto, and why they want the role.
The last question matters more than it sounds. The answer tends to say whether somebody wants the role or the audience that comes with it.
A test that matches the role
Then a piece of work rather than an interview answer. An analyst writes a short market analysis. A moderator is given realistic situations of the kind this server actually produces, and says what they would do about each.
Everyone applying for the same role is scored against the same criteria, so what gets compared is two pieces of work rather than two impressions. For an analyst that is the quality of the analysis, the reasoning behind it, risk awareness and consistency. For a moderator it is activity, maturity, fairness, communication, and how calmly they handle a situation that has already gone wrong.
We also look at where somebody has been: the communities they were in before, whatever public work they have, and references where there are any.
A paid trial before anything is published
Nobody goes straight onto the team page. A successful application leads to a paid trial, usually two to four weeks, with limited permissions and responsibilities that are written down rather than assumed. It is real work and it is paid.
The decision at the end is about the trial rather than the application that earned it: whether they were reliable, whether the work was good, whether they communicated, whether their judgement held up, and how professionally they behaved when something went wrong.
What is agreed before they start
Pay, hours, what they are responsible for, the rules they work under, what stays confidential, and the reasons somebody can be removed. All of it is settled at the beginning rather than improvised later, which is the only way the last one is fair: nobody should find out what costs them the role on the day it does.
The rules that exist because this is crypto
Four of them are not negotiable, and they are the ones a member has most reason to care about.
No undisclosed promotion. Nobody on the team posts about a project, an exchange or a token they are being paid to post about without saying that they are.
No trading on where they sit. Seeing what the team sees before members do is not an edge to use, and using it is grounds for removal.
Nobody asks for a wallet, a seed phrase or a private key. Not support, not an analyst, not the founder, not ever, for any reason. Anyone claiming to be from Axion who asks is not from Axion, which is the single most useful thing on our page about staying safe.
No admin permissions a role does not need. Permissions follow the job rather than the person, and they are taken back when the job no longer needs them.
Then the record takes over
The application decides who gets a trial. After that the check is continuous and public: every call is recorded by the bot as it is posted, and counted whichever way it goes. Analysts do not write up their own results, cannot edit them afterwards, and do not choose which ones count.
That is the part of a track record that cannot be presented well, which is why it is the part that decides whether somebody stays.
Risk stated before the trade, every time
A call that does not say where it is wrong is not a call, it is an opinion. The notation carries the level that ends the idea alongside the entry and the targets, and the bot flags a call posted without one rather than filing it quietly.
A call with no stated invalidation earns no R in the published record. It still appears, it still counts in the win rate, and it is still there under the analyst's name, so somebody who kept posting them would have a record that says so, in public, permanently.
Measured in public, with the losses on the same page
Every analyst agrees when they join the team that their record is published. Not a selection from it: the record carries wins and losses per analyst over seven, thirty and ninety days, the whole ledger downloads as a CSV, and a public repository holds a script that recomputes every figure on that page from the same CSV you can download.
Being willing to be read that way is the requirement we cannot demonstrate to you with a link, it is the one an analyst has to bring. Everything it produces afterwards is checkable, which is the point of asking for it up front.
The record does not leave when the person does
Leaving the team retracts nothing. The calls somebody made stay in the published record, and their timestamps stay in the public log for good.
There is no version of leaving that tidies up the history on the way out. That is worth knowing before joining, and everybody here does.
How someone comes off the list
The grounds are the ones agreed at the start, and in practice they come down to two: conduct, and going quiet. An analyst who stops posting, or a moderator who stops moderating, does not stay on a page that says these are the people doing it. The decision is a human one, made by the team.
A drawdown is not one of them. What is judged is reasoning and risk discipline rather than last month's result, because a record that only ever shows the good months is the thing this entire site argues against, and quietly dropping an analyst who had a bad quarter would be that same edit made to a roster instead of a ledger.
When it happens, they come off the team page straight away.
What we do not publish
Applicants are scored against the same criteria, and those scores stay between the team and the person who applied. There is no acceptance rate here, no count of applicants and nobody's marks: figures about people who applied are not ours to publish, and a number nobody outside can check is worth less than the thing you can check.
What you can check is the record: every call from every analyst, timestamped when it was posted and counted whether it worked or not. That check runs continuously, rather than once when somebody was let in.