Chapter 25 — Design studio I | Engineering Web3, blockchain and cryptoasset security

Open, free learning for anyone who wants to protect people and technology. No account is required to read this text or its worked answers.

Chapter 25 — Design studio I

Lesson map

Lesson 25 published. Map, example, EX073.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["25.1 Studio format"]
  N2["25.2 Critique"]
  N3["25.3 Choosing a direction"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX073"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["25.1 Studio format"]
  N2["25.2 Critique"]
  N3["25.3 Choosing a direction"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX073"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[25.1 Studio format]
    |
    v
[25.2 Critique]
    |
    v
[25.3 Choosing a direction]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX073]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) develop alternative designs collaboratively; (2) critique designs against requirements; (3) choose a direction.

25.1 Studio format

In the first design studio, Jonas and three classmates each sketch a design for credit issuance and governance, then present to peers and Dr Nwosu. Each design must state assumptions, show the state and role models, and explain how it meets the top requirements. The studio format encourages divergent thinking first and critique second, so that the team does not lock onto the first idea. Jonas's design uses a single credit contract with role-based access; a classmate proposes separate contracts for minting and transfers.

25.2 Critique

Critique follows a structure: does the design meet each high-priority requirement, what new risks does it introduce, and can the cooperative maintain it? Peers point out that Jonas's single contract concentrates all roles in one place, making upgrades riskier, while the split design adds interfaces between contracts that need careful checking. A partner engineer notes that the split design's minting contract could be simpler to review. Structured critique turns opinions into reasons linked to requirements. Jonas records every critique point with its reasoning.

25.3 Choosing a direction

The studio agrees to carry two alternatives forward for formal comparison in the next chapter: a single contract with roles, and a split design with a minimal minting contract. Jonas records the decision and the reasons, and lists questions to answer, such as how upgrades would work in each. Choosing a direction does not mean picking a winner yet; it means narrowing options to those worth analysing carefully. The studio's record becomes part of the design history. The questions guide the next chapter's analysis.

Worked example

Four designs are presented; critique narrows them to a single role-based contract and a split design with a minimal minting contract.

Synthetic case. Designs, students and critiques are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Adopting the first design without considering alternatives misses better options.

Exercises

EX073 — Studio requirement. What must each studio design state? Rubric: 3 = assumptions, models and how it meets top requirements;; 2 = assumptions;; 1 = colours;; 0 = none.
EX074 — Single-contract concern. What concern was raised about Jonas's design? Rubric: 3 = concentrates roles, riskier upgrades;; 2 = concentration;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
EX075 — Carried forward. How many alternatives were carried forward? Rubric: 3 = two;; 2 = 2;; 1 = four;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Studios generate alternatives and critique them against requirements before committing.

Continue studying — chapter 25 of 50

← Chapter 24 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 26 (draft) →