The brief
Angles we commission on wallets
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.
Recovery, tested rather than described
You wiped the device and restored from the seed. What actually happened, how long it took, what the interface got wrong, and where a first-timer would have lost the funds.
Threat models people actually face
Not "someone steals your seed phrase". The realistic cases: a malicious approval, a clipboard swap, a fake support agent, an inherited device with no PIN. What defends against each, and what does not.
Custody trade-offs with the costs named
Self-custody is not free. Compare the real cost of a hardware device, a multisig setup, and a custodial account, including the cost of getting it wrong.
What breaks after two years
Firmware that stopped being updated, a chain the wallet quietly dropped, a company that changed its fee model. Longevity is the least-covered part of a wallet review.
The standard
What a commissioned piece has to do
A wallet article is a security article, and a reader who follows bad advice here loses money that cannot be recovered. Every claim needs a primary source and a date, and every recommendation needs the threat it defends against named.
What gets accepted
- First-hand use of the wallet, named and dated
- A recovery you performed yourself, with the outcome
- Primary sources for every fee, limit, and supported chain
- A clear statement of what you could not verify
- The failure case, not just the happy path
What gets rejected
- Referral links or affiliate codes in the body
- Feature lists copied from the vendor site
- "Most secure wallet" claims with no threat model attached
- Seed-phrase advice you have not tested on real hardware
The full standard, including sourcing and disclosure rules, is in our wallets contributor standards. 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 wallets 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 wallets 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.
Wallets contributor FAQs
What wallet topics are you actively looking for?
Anything that survives contact with a real user. Recovery walkthroughs, approval hygiene, multisig for individuals rather than treasuries, and honest accounts of what a device does badly. The general security guidance from CISA is a reasonable baseline for the standard of advice we expect.
Do I need to own the hardware to review it?
For a review, yes. We do not publish hardware assessments written from spec sheets. If you have used it for a few months and can describe what annoyed you, that is the piece we want.
Can I write about a wallet I work on?
Not as editorial. A commercial interest makes it a paid placement, clearly labelled and carrying rel="sponsored" on its links. We are glad to run that; we will not run it disguised as independent coverage.
How long should a wallet piece be?
Usually 1,200 to 2,000 words. A single well-tested recovery walkthrough can be shorter and still land, provided the detail is real.
Do you take comparisons between wallets?
Yes, if the criteria are stated up front and applied evenly. See our wallet round-up for the rubric we use, and tell us where you would score differently.
What is your turnaround on pitches?
Two to three working days. Wallet coverage dates more slowly than news, so we take a little longer over the angle.