Blog

What we write about, and why

Most writing about mobile crypto exists to convert readers into sign-ups, which is why so much of it is vague in the same places. The mechanism is described as proprietary technology. Earnings are implied rather than stated. The question of whether anything can actually be withdrawn is left until after you have installed something.

These guides are written to be useful whether or not you ever use UNC. That means explaining how mobile mining actually works, including the part where almost no app in this category performs real computation on your phone — ours included. It means being specific that pre-mainnet tokens have no market price and cannot be converted to cash. And it means covering the topics that protect people rather than only the ones that sell: recovery passphrases and why nobody can restore a lost one, how giveaway scams are constructed, what identity verification is for, and how to read a blockchain explorer so you can check a balance without trusting the app that displayed it.

Where a post touches on something we build, we say so in the post rather than leaving you to work it out. We would rather be the project that told you the unflattering version first, because a reader who understands the limitations and takes part anyway is worth more to a network like this than one recruited on an impression that does not survive contact with the product.

If something here is wrong, out of date, or reads as though it is selling rather than explaining, that is worth telling us about. The value of writing like this depends entirely on it being accurate, and accuracy is easier to maintain when readers push back.

Where to start

If you are new to the category, the most useful thing to read first is how mobile crypto mining actually works, because almost everything else follows from understanding that no real computation happens on your phone. Once that is clear, claims made by apps in this space become far easier to evaluate — you stop asking how much an app pays and start asking what it is actually doing, which is a much better question.

If you are mainly concerned with not losing anything, start with the security material instead. The pieces on recovery passphrases and on giveaway scams cover the two mechanisms behind the majority of individual losses in crypto, and neither is technically complicated. Most people who lose funds do not lose them to a sophisticated exploit; they lose them by storing a passphrase somewhere it could be read, or by typing it into something that asked convincingly.

If you arrived here specifically wondering whether any of this is a way to make money, the honest guide to earning from a phone is the one to read, and it will probably not tell you what you were hoping to hear. Its conclusion is that a phone is an excellent tool for supplementary income and a poor tool for replacing a salary, and that the highest-paying option available to most people is a skill they already have rather than any app at all.

A note on the word mining

You will notice the word mining used throughout this site, including in places where we then immediately explain that no mining in the computational sense is taking place. That tension is deliberate but not comfortable, and it is worth explaining rather than leaving as an apparent contradiction.

People search for mobile mining. It is the language the category has settled on, and refusing to use it entirely would mean writing guides that the people who need them cannot find. The alternative we have chosen is to use the term where it aids discovery and then correct it on the page, every time, rather than letting the association with Bitcoin do unearned work. If the industry ever settles on more accurate language, we will use that instead.

The same reasoning governs how these posts treat UNC itself. A guide that quietly steers every conclusion toward the product it is published by is advertising wearing the clothes of explanation, and readers can generally tell. Where UNC is a reasonable answer to the question a post is asking, it is named alongside its limitations. Where it is not the right answer, the post says so and points somewhere else, because a guide that cannot recommend against its own publisher is not a guide worth reading in the first place.