Back to portfolio
Content & MarketingSimulated project
Research Writer portfolio brief
A simulated content & marketing exercise for Research Writer. Treat it as realistic practice, not real client or protocol work.
6 deliverables6 tools referenced3 linked interview questions
Objective
Choose a narrow protocol question
Expected deliverables
Research memoExecutive summarySource appendixMethodology noteRisk and limitation sectionComparison table
Recommended workflow
- Choose a narrow protocol question
- Build a source hierarchy and methodology before writing
- Publish the memo with explicit limitations and a change log
- Review the result against the rubric, then package it as a case study.
Constraints and safety
- Use only public sources or clearly simulated data.
- Never include seed phrases, private keys, or wallet secrets.
- Redact private user, company, security, legal, or compensation information.
- State every assumption you make.
Tools in practice
- Docs or Notion
- Draft, review, and maintain research memo and executive summary, with owners, source links, and change history.
- Dune
- Collect and analyse the evidence used in research memo and executive summary, with definitions and reproducible steps.
- DefiLlama
- Compare protocol TVL, fees, chains, and categories, then verify the definitions before using the figures in analysis.
- block explorers
- Verify transactions, contract addresses, events, token movements, deployment state, and incident claims against chain data.
- Google Sheets
- Structure the records behind research memo and executive summary and make review status visible.
- citation and archiving tools
- Preserve source pages, announcements, edits, and dates so later claims can be checked even when a page changes.
What a strong submission shows
- A 1,500-word protocol memo
- A comparative analysis with explicit methodology
- A source log
- A revision note showing how new evidence changed the conclusion
Weak submission patterns
- A long article built mostly from secondary summaries
- Confident conclusions without limitations
- Dashboard screenshots without metric definitions
Review rubric
- Accuracy of claims and sources
- Relevance to the target role
- Decision quality and trade-offs
- Completeness of the deliverable
- Clarity of communication
- Honest limitations and next steps
Present it as a case study
- Explain the problem, sources, decisions, ownership, constraints, output, review, and what you would change.
- Show the final artifact before the process notes.
- State what you owned and what belonged to other people.
- Label the work as simulated, and keep any real contribution clearly separate.
Interview questions this project helps you answer
How do you decide which source is authoritative when protocol materials disagree?
Tell us about a conclusion you changed after finding stronger evidence
How would you explain a metric that is useful but easy to misinterpret?