The brief
Angles we commission on blockchain
We are not short of general overviews. These are the shapes that get commissioned, with the kind of specificity that separates a pitch from a topic.
Protocol design trade-offs
Why a chain made a specific choice on consensus, finality, or data availability, and what it costs. Written for someone technical enough to care about the answer.
Scaling in practice
Rollups, validiums, sidechains and the gap between the throughput claim and what a user experiences at peak load. Bring measurements.
Infrastructure that quietly matters
Node operation, RPC centralization, bridges, sequencer risk, MEV. The parts that decide whether decentralization is real or nominal.
The standard
What a commissioned piece has to do
Blockchain pieces are read by people who will check your claims. Name the specifications, show the methodology behind any measurement, and be straight about trade-offs.
What gets accepted
- Technical accuracy that survives an expert reader
- Named protocols, standards and specifications
- Measurements or citations rather than assertions
- Honesty about where a design is a genuine trade-off
- An explanation a smart non-specialist can still follow
What gets rejected
- Chain marketing rewritten as neutral analysis
- Benchmarks with no methodology attached
- "Ethereum killer" framing and comparable hype
- Whitepaper summaries with nothing added
- Enterprise blockchain pieces with no working deployment
The full standard, including sourcing and disclosure rules, is in our guest post guidelines. Read it before pitching; it answers most questions faster than we can, and it echoes the same principles in the SPJ Code of Ethics.
Ready?
Pitch a blockchain piece
One idea per pitch. Give us the angle, why it matters now, and a link to something you have written. Choose "Editorial pitch" so it reaches the right desk.
Inquiry
Pitch a blockchain piece
Angle, why now, and a writing sample. Choose 'Editorial pitch' as your interest.
Thanks, we'll be in touch
Your message is on its way to the Curio team. Expect a reply within about two business days.
Blockchain contributor FAQs
How technical can a blockchain piece be?
More technical than most of our crypto coverage. This is the section where a reader is expected to know what finality means. What we still insist on is that the first paragraph makes the stakes legible to a non-specialist, even if the body does not.
Do you publish pieces critical of specific chains?
Yes, provided the criticism is technical and evidenced. A well-argued case that a design choice creates a specific failure mode is exactly what this section is for. What we will not run is a hit piece with no mechanism behind it.
Can I include benchmarks or my own measurements?
Please do, and include your methodology so a reader can reproduce them, and link the protocol's own repository on GitHub where relevant. Numbers without a stated method are the most common reason we send a blockchain piece back for revision.
Do you cover enterprise or permissioned blockchain?
Occasionally, and the bar is a real deployment with real users. Pilots and proofs of concept that never shipped are not interesting unless the story is why they did not.
What length works for this section?
Usually 1,500 to 2,200 words. Technical arguments need room to establish their premises, but that is not a licence for padding.
I work on a protocol. Can I write about it?
You can write about the problem space, and you must disclose your affiliation up front. Writing about your own protocol is a sponsored placement, not editorial. The disclosure requirement is not negotiable and we check.