Chapter 42 — Web3, blockchain and cryptoasset security: applied research
Lesson map
Lesson 42 published. Map, example, EX124.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["42.1 Question from practice"]
N2["42.2 Study design"]
N3["42.3 Careful reporting"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX124"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["42.1 Question from practice"]
N2["42.2 Study design"]
N3["42.3 Careful reporting"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX124"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[42.1 Question from practice]
|
v
[42.2 Study design]
|
v
[42.3 Careful reporting]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX124]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) frame an applied research question from operations; (2) design a small study; (3) report findings carefully.
42.1 Question from practice
Operations raise a question: do members who use their own wallets experience more support problems than members using cooperative custody? Jonas frames it as an applied research question with measurable outcomes: support tickets per member per quarter and time to resolve. He notes that members choosing their own wallets may differ in digital skills, a confounder he must consider. Applied research turns operational curiosity into evidence that can guide decisions. He discusses the question with support staff to make sure the outcomes reflect their real workload.
42.2 Study design
Jonas uses six months of synthetic support records for 400 members, comparing the two groups and stratifying by age band as a proxy for digital experience. He pre-states his analysis in a short plan approved by Dr Nwosu, and ensures support records are pseudonymised and handled under the cooperative's privacy policy. He also reads Perez and Livshits (2021) as an example of careful interpretation, noting that apparent risk does not always translate into actual harm. The plan is filed before any analysis.
42.3 Careful reporting
Self-custody members raised more tickets overall, but within age bands the difference was smaller and mostly concerned key backup. Jonas reports this with counts and intervals, recommends improved backup guidance, and avoids claiming that self-custody is unsafe. The board adopts the guidance and asks for a follow-up after a year. Careful reporting keeps research useful to decisions without overstating what the data show. He shares the report with support staff, who suggest a short printed backup guide, and the follow-up study is planned with the same measures so results can be compared directly.
Worked example
Self-custody members raise more tickets, but stratifying by age band shrinks the difference, mostly to key backup issues; guidance is improved.
Synthetic case. Members, tickets and results are synthetic; Perez and Livshits (2021) is a real source.
Errors and limits
Comparing groups without considering who chooses each option can mislead decisions.
Exercises
- EX124 — Outcome measures. What outcomes are measured? Rubric: 3 = tickets per member per quarter and resolution time;; 2 = tickets;; 1 = balances;; 0 = none.
- EX125 — Confounder. What confounder is considered? Rubric: 3 = digital skills, proxied by age band;; 2 = skills;; 1 = weather;; 0 = none.
- EX126 — Main issue. What did self-custody tickets mostly concern? Rubric: 3 = key backup;; 2 = backup;; 1 = fees;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Small, pre-planned applied studies with careful reporting improve operational decisions.
Continue studying — chapter 42 of 50
← Chapter 41 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 43 (draft) →