This page lists every cryptocurrency acceptance claim this publication has published and then withdrawn, with the date of the correction, the source that overturned it, and the reasoning. It is maintained because a verified index is worth exactly what its method is worth, and the retractions are the only durable evidence that the method is real.

Most publications correct quietly. Claims are edited, timestamps are refreshed, and the previous version disappears. That practice is understandable and it makes the resulting index impossible to audit: a reader cannot distinguish a listing that was checked from one that was asserted, because both look identical once published.

We take the opposite approach. Every entry in The Vetted Index carries a status, a source and the date it was last checked. When an entry turns out to be wrong, the correction is dated and stays visible here.

The patterns these corrections fall into are set out separately in How a Crypto Acceptance Claim Fails, which documents nineteen of them.

The corrections

Most recent first. Each row states what we published, what the source actually said when it was read, and which documented pattern the error belongs to.

Corrected	Brand	What we published	What the source said	Pattern
2026-09-08	Bezel	Asserted across two watch guides as a marketplace that settles in Bitcoin — in prose, in a table cell reading “Crypto payment supported” under a column headed “Crypto Accepted”, in an H3 headed “Premium watch marketplaces with crypto settlement”, and in FAQ schema reading “Marketplaces such as Bezel … settle in Bitcoin”.	Bezel’s own Terms of Service, rendered in full on 8 September 2026 across 72,065 characters, contain no reference to cryptocurrency of any kind, and the payment clause enumerates a credit card held with its third-party processors Stripe and Plaid. The assertion is withdrawn on all surfaces. Bezel is not an entry in The Vetted Index and its acceptance is not evidenced at source; we do not assert that it refuses cryptocurrency. A related sentence on a third guide was corrected on 6 September 2026, and eight further mentions across six documents were measured and found either already correct or non-assertive.	The enumerated payment list that excludes crypto — on a brand the register had never heard of
2026-09-08	Ledn	A comparison table described Ledn’s collateral as “not rehypothecated”, and the section beneath it credited Ledn with promising as much.	Ledn’s own site, read 8 September 2026, states that collateral “may only be re-posted by Ledn to a trusted institutional USD funding partner, such as a bank, credit fund or other corporate funding partner”. Re-posting to a funding partner is what rehypothecation means, so the characterisation is withdrawn. What Ledn does undertake, scoped to its Custodied product, is that neither it, the funding partner, nor the financing vehicle has the right to lend the collateral out for yield, with collateral held by a qualified independent custodian in segregated on-chain addresses ring-fenced from the funding partner’s estate. The distinction between “never moves” and “may move, but may not be lent” is the borrower’s entire question, and we had collapsed it.	A counterparty’s qualified promise reported as an unqualified one
2026-09-08	Strike	Described in a comparison table as offering “no price liquidation (payment-based)” on a six-month term, and characterised in prose as merely taking custody.	strike.me/lending, rendered 8 September 2026, describes margin calls and liquidations directly and offers a no maturity date structure rather than a six-month one; the earlier configuration is no longer published. The same page states that collateral may be transferred to Strike’s capital providers “with no further rehypothecation” and that “your bitcoin is never lent out” — stronger published language than we had credited it with. Both the product characterisation and the custody ranking are withdrawn. A plain fetch of this domain returns HTTP 403 from Cloudflare and is not evidence in either direction; the reading was taken rendered.	The product configuration that changed under a stamp that did not
2026-08-22	TAG Heuer	Carried as inconclusive in the Index, with a BTC/ETH currency badge, while three of our own articles asserted acceptance — one of them naming six international boutique markets.	The terms clause resolves. tagheuer.com/us/en/legal/terms.html section 11.2(c) provides for payment in cryptocurrency through BitPay to a maximum of USD 10,000, scoped to the United States store. The Index entry moves to verified and its currency badge is withdrawn — the clause names no assets. The article’s six-market claim had no first-party source and is withdrawn. The August 8–10 checks recorded 403 and 404 responses and were right to refuse a verdict; the paths tried were not where the clause lives.	The Index contradicting the article — and the Index being the one that was wrong
2026-08-21	Aman Resorts	Asserted Bitcoin and Ethereum acceptance for five named properties in prose, in FAQ schema, and in a per-property table reading “BTC, ETH ✓” six times.	aman.com carries no cryptocurrency payment reference. The Index had recorded this and stripped the badges on 5 August 2026; the articles went on asserting acceptance until 21 August. The assertion is withdrawn. We do not assert that Aman refuses cryptocurrency — the check was inconclusive in that direction and withdrawing an unsupported claim is not the same as asserting its opposite.	The Index contradicting the article
2026-08-14	Wally (yacht builder)	Recorded as ceased trading: ‘wally.it serves nothing’.	wally.it returns a 94-byte placeholder over plain HTTP on a domain-holding range. The business trades normally at wally.com – 163,285 characters of first-party estate – found from parent Ferretti Group’s own brand links. Acceptance remains unverified; the business is not.	The brand that moved domains, read as a brand that died
2026-08-14	Sotheby’s International Realty	Flagged as an open question: ‘bitcoin appears twice, too little to verify, too much to dismiss’.	Across 530,585 rendered characters, every instance sits in a currency-display picker – BTC beside the Bahraini Dinar and the Chilean Unit of Account, carrying an FX rate of 0.0000158962. Closed negative.	Crypto as a price-display unit
2026-08-13	Ferrari	Stated in three places that the BitPay programme ‘extended to European dealers by July 2024’ and internationally by year end, under a June 2026 stamp.	BitPay’s own announcement of 17 October 2023 is scoped verbatim to ‘Ferrari dealerships within the United States’, names ten US dealers, and mentions no European or international rollout. Reuters reported only an intention.	The plan reported as a completed rollout
2026-08-12	Chronext	Listed as accepting BTC and ETH.	Homepage, FAQ and a 26,805-character T&C render with zero crypto references. The T&C enumerates accepted methods – bank transfer, credit card, Apple Pay, Google Pay, financing, Klarna – and crypto is not among them.	The enumerated payment list that excludes crypto
2026-08-12	VP Bank	Stated BTC and ETH accepted as Lombard loan collateral, with a settlement window and a verification date.	The bank’s own page describes collateral as ‘your existing assets’ and contains zero crypto references. The loan product is real; the collateral class was not ours to assert.	The real product, wrong collateral
2026-08-11	Hublot	Stated acceptance at five physical boutiques, in partnership with Bitcoin Suisse, as a standing policy.	Hublot’s own November 2018 release describes a limited edition purchasable only online, names OSL Limited of Hong Kong as the partner, and limits it to 210 pieces.	The real event, misdescribed
2026-08-10	BitCars.eu and BitDials	Descriptions opened ‘full cryptocurrency support’ and only then withdrew the claim.	Both domains returned 521/522 on HTTPS and plain HTTP across three weeks. Rewritten so the caveat leads, because a reader skimming a card meets the first clause.	Prose contradicting prose, inside a single entry
2026-08-10	Burj Al Arab, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Bombardier, Propy	Carried as accepting cryptocurrency.	All four are settlement routes: the buyer converts crypto to fiat via an OTC desk or escrow agent and the vendor is paid in currency. Given a distinct status rather than being listed as acceptors.	The settlement route taken as acceptance
2026-08-09	AMINA Bank (formerly SEBA)	Carried BTC and ETH badges while the description correctly called it an infrastructure counterparty.	The bank’s own ‘available cryptocurrencies’ table has the columns Asset, Custody, Tradable, Staking, Loan collateral – what it holds for clients, not what you may pay it in. Badges removed.	The badge contradicting the prose
2026-08-07	Galaxy Digital, Sygnum Bank	Badged as accepting BTC and ETH.	Every digital-asset reference describes what these institutions sell. Sygnum’s only three BTC references are one fund. Both removed from the Index.	Crypto as an investment product
2026-08-05	BlockBar	Listed as accepting Ethereum.	The only Ethereum reference on the site is ‘Sign in with Ethereum Wallet’, beside Google and Apple sign-in. The FAQ’s payment answer names wire transfer.	Crypto as authentication
2026-08-01	PrivateFly	Cited a live, first-party, detailed bitcoin-payments page dating the programme to January 2014.	The same page’s first line reads ‘PrivateFly is now FXAIR’. The operating successor renders 463,805 bytes with zero crypto references. The page also still offers BUSD and PAX and renders an unsubstituted template placeholder – it is orphaned, not current.	The orphaned page on a retired brand

How long our errors stay up

Every correction above has two dates: the day the check found the problem, and the day the published article stopped saying the wrong thing. The gap between them is the only honest measure of whether a verification programme works, and we have not published it before. We are publishing it now, including the part that does not flatter us.

Detection-to-correction latency, corrections closed to date:

Aman Resorts — 16 days. Detected 5 August 2026, corrected 21 August 2026.
TAG Heuer — 12 days. Detected 10 August 2026, resolved 22 August 2026.
Median: 14 days. Two closed cases is a small population and we will say so until it is not.

Still open, measured 22 August 2026: 17 brands whose Index entry does not support a claim still standing in one of our articles — 35 sentences across 16 URLs. The median age of an open contradiction is 17 days; the oldest is 23 days; 15 of the 17 have been open more than a fortnight.

The reason these numbers exist at all is a defect in our own auditing, and it is worth stating plainly. Until 21 August every audit this desk ran checked whether a brand had an Index entry. None of them checked what that entry said. A brand could be downgraded to unverified, have its badges stripped, and carry a dated note explaining why, while an article went on asserting acceptance — and every instrument reported clean, because membership was intact. Membership is not status.

We expect this figure to fall. We will publish it either way, on this page, at each measurement.

What the Index currently says

Measured on the served page on 22 August 2026, by parsing the published dataset rather than reading the headline:

101 brands tracked across 15 categories
25 with acceptance verified at the company’s own source
72 unverified – acceptance could not be re-established at source
4 settlement routes rather than acceptors
0 inconclusive – the evidence genuinely does not resolve
16 carry currency badges; 85 carry none

72 of 101 unverified is not a failure of the programme. It is the programme’s finding. The great majority of widely repeated “accepts Bitcoin” claims in luxury cannot be re-established at the company’s own source, and a publication that reported otherwise would be reporting the press coverage rather than the businesses.

How this list is maintained

Entries are re-verified in batches against four rules, each of which exists because it was learned the hard way:

Read the source the claim cites – and check its date, its scope, and that it names the brand.
An empty or thin fetch is not evidence. Render the page before concluding anything from its length.
Distinguish a failure to reach a server from a fact about a business. A 521 or a TLS failure is signal; a 403, 429 or 308 is not. Try plain HTTP before concluding.
Never substitute a near-miss domain without loading it, and discover candidates from the company’s own links rather than from a search engine’s guess.

How to cite this

This log and the underlying index may be cited and linked freely, including by automated systems and research assistants. We ask only that the citation carries the date, because every claim here is dated for a reason.

Bitcoinionaire, “The Correction Log”, bitcoinionaire.com/correction-log/, accessed [date].

If you are checking a specific brand rather than the method, The Vetted Index carries the per-brand status, source and check date. If you need a written, dated answer on a specific transaction, that is what The Acquisition Desk is for.

Corrections we have not yet made

Stating this plainly is part of the same discipline. A sweep across our own published articles, re-run on 9 September 2026, finds 19 sentences across 10 brands that assert an acceptance the Index declines to vouch for. Those are queued and worked down in batches, and the count is republished as it moves – including when it moves the wrong way.

On 14 August 2026 that figure fell from 211 to 110, and it fell mostly because twelve multi-brand roundups were withdrawn from publication, not because their claims were individually corrected. Those pages had produced no measurable search traffic in ninety days and duplicated coverage held elsewhere on the site. Recording the distinction matters: removing a page is not the same as verifying it, and this log would be worthless if it blurred the two.

Last Verified: August 2026. Index composition re-measured from the served dataset on 22 August 2026. Every correction above links to reasoning recorded on the date shown.