The brief
Angles we commission on web3
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.
Wallets as identity
Sign-in with a wallet, account abstraction, key recovery, and what happens to a user who loses access. The unglamorous parts that decide adoption.
Governance that actually governs
DAO voting mechanics, turnout, delegation, and the gap between a governance forum and real control over a protocol.
Decentralization audits
Pick a Web3 product and check the claim. Where are the servers, who holds the upgrade key, what happens if one company shuts down.
The standard
What a commissioned piece has to do
The test for this section is simple. Can a reader verify your central claim from public records, contracts, or their own use of the product? If not, the piece is not ready.
What gets accepted
- Claims tested against how a system actually runs
- Attention to the user who is not already crypto-native
- Named projects, contracts and governance records
- Willingness to conclude that something is not decentralized
- Disclosure of any role you hold in a project you cover
What gets rejected
- Web3 as a synonym for "good" with no mechanism
- Vision pieces with no shipped product behind them
- Roadmap coverage and funding announcements
- Decentralization claims taken at face value
- Anything that requires the reader to already be sold
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 web3 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 web3 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.
Web3 contributor FAQs
What counts as Web3 for this section?
Anything where the argument is about ownership, identity, or control moving to the user, and where you can point at a running system. If the piece would still make sense with "Web3" deleted from it, it probably belongs in our crypto or blockchain section instead.
Do you accept sceptical pieces about Web3?
Actively. A well-evidenced piece showing that a product marketed as decentralized runs on one company's infrastructure is more valuable than another explainer. Scepticism has to be evidenced, not just asserted.
Can I write about DAOs and governance?
Yes, and governance is the most under-covered area here. Voting turnout, delegate concentration and treasury control are all matters of public record, often visible directly in a project's GitHub repository or governance contracts, which makes them checkable in a way most Web3 writing is not.
How do you handle pieces about a project I work on?
Disclose it in your pitch and we will tell you whether it can run as editorial with a disclosure line or belongs on our sponsored track. Both are legitimate. Undisclosed advocacy is not.
Do I need to be a developer?
No. Some of the best pieces in this area come from people who study governance, law, or user behaviour rather than code. You do need to be precise about what you have checked yourself and what you are taking on trust.
What length works here?
Usually 1,300 to 2,000 words. Decentralization audits often need more room because the evidence has to be laid out properly.