Complete the Graduation Research and Safety Review
Section 1 of 7
Assemble a consistent seven-part dossier
Your learning goal
Produce a coherent dossier that connects knowledge, evidence, risk limits and practice.
Graduation means you can connect the course's ideas and explain their limits. It does not mean that you must invest, trade or demonstrate profit. Your final dossier brings together security, backup planning, token research, exchange review, portfolio rules, a scam assessment and a research report. The appendix supplies editable templates and a complete fictional practice ledger.
Key idea
Review the entire route and correct contradictions before judging the conclusion.
Education only. Crypto assets can lose substantial value or become worthless. No lesson requires buying an asset, depositing money or sharing real passwords, private keys or recovery words.
Assemble the seven connected course outputs
Prepare the security checklist, wallet backup plan, token research template, exchange-risk comparison, portfolio-risk policy, scam assessment and research report. Use fictional quantities and placeholder secret locations. Each output should reference the lesson or source that supports its reasoning. The reader should be able to understand the dossier without knowing your personal accounts.
These components answer different questions. Security concerns authority and procedure; research concerns evidence and rights; portfolio policy concerns affordable exposure and dependencies; practice concerns whether a rule was applied consistently. A strong dossier keeps those questions connected without using one good result to excuse a missing check elsewhere. Do not leave a template field filled only with a reassuring adjective such as trusted or safe.
Use the workbook immediately after the lessons. Start each output with the exact product, purpose and date, then supply evidence or state what is missing. The seven outputs are a security checklist, backup plan, token dossier, provider comparison, portfolio-risk policy, scam assessment and research report. They can all describe fictional situations.
The research report connects the other six outputs. It should let a reviewer trace the same asset identity, custody arrangement and assumed budget through every page. A backup plan for a self-custody wallet cannot be used as evidence that an exchange holds enough assets to honour customer claims.
Reconcile identity rights and custody
Check that the token name, network, contract and representation are the same wherever the dossier discusses them. If the example uses a custodian, the backup plan must not pretend that a personal recovery phrase controls the provider's assets. If the transfer route uses a bridge, the risk map must include that bridge. If a yield claim involves lending, do not describe it as native staking.
Consistency is a practical safety test. A wrong assumption can survive in one page and contradict another. Read the file as a single route from acquiring or researching an asset to controlling it, using it and exiting. Identify each party whose performance is needed. Mark unresolved facts clearly rather than choosing the version that makes the plan look easiest.
Section 2 of 7
Challenge the evidence and reconcile the practice record
Complete the scam and evidence assessment
Use the supplied scam message and identify the requested money, information or authority. State the independent verification route and why the action should pause. Do not click a real suspicious link or contact its sender to complete the assessment. Preserve non-secret fictional evidence and describe the correct incident category if compromise is suspected.
For the research report, label facts, calculations, estimates, hypotheses and forecasts. Include a contrary explanation and an observable invalidation condition. Every important claim needs a source, a date or a supplied assumption. A claim with no evidence belongs in the unresolved section. The report can recommend further research or no action; it should not manufacture a trade recommendation to seem complete.
| Component | Evidence of completion | Contradiction to detect |
|---|---|---|
| Security checklist | Specific checks and incident categories | Disconnect claimed to revoke all permissions |
| Backup plan | Usable non-secret recovery structure | Exposed phrase called repaired by password |
| Token research | Identity rights supply and liquidity | Wrong network or unsupported holder rights |
| Exchange comparison | Terms custody and evidence scope | Registration treated as full insurance |
| Portfolio policy | Amounts dependencies and stress | Several names treated as independent custody |
| Scam assessment | Request and independent verification | Requester provides its own verification link |
| Research report | Rules net results benchmark and limits | Backtest presented as guaranteed profit |
Attach the complete paper practice record
Attach the rule version, dataset or supplied scenario, costs, fill assumptions, complete results, benchmark and limitations. The ten-trade example in this document has six wins yet loses USD 50 net, making it useful for checking whether you understand more than win rate. Its equity path also supports a drawdown calculation.
Record adherence separately from outcome. If you change a rule, preserve the old version and explain which data informed the change. A paper sample is evidence about that practice under its assumptions. It is not proof of real execution, future performance or suitability for you. Graduation assesses the honesty and completeness of the reasoning, not whether the sample happens to be positive.
Reflect on what you know and what needs review
Explain what you can now do: distinguish rights and custody, inspect a transfer, describe a contract dependency, reconcile costs and test a claim. Then state what still requires further study, current local guidance or specialist help. A thoughtful boundary is part of competence. You should be able to recognise when a question goes beyond beginner foundations.
Finish with a version date and a short maintenance plan for changing sources or product terms. Use the review checklist to correct contradictions before submission. A reviewer can ask for clarification without receiving real secrets or approving a real-money action. The course is complete when you can give a clear, sourced explanation and a defensible reason to proceed with research, continue simulation or decline an activity.
Review each output as evidence shown, needs clarification or missing. If a number cannot be reconciled, fix the inputs before evaluating the conclusion. If an important source is absent, state the gap instead of filling it with confident wording.
Your final reflection should identify one skill you can now demonstrate, one assumption you used and one question that needs current local or specialist guidance. Keep the document dated and review material changes to code, service terms or sources. Course completion measures understanding and process; it does not approve a real product or guarantee a result.
Section 3 of 7
Workbook: security and backup plans
Use the graduation workbook
Copy these worksheet prompts into your own notebook or document and write your responses there. The website tables provide the workbook structure; they are not editable form fields. Use fictional information and never record real secrets.
Complete these seven outputs with supplied or fictional information. Use the response columns as editable writing spaces. Never include actual recovery material, private keys, authentication codes, personal account identifiers or unredacted financial records. You can demonstrate the structure of a good plan without revealing the means to use a real account.
A response should name an action, evidence source or unresolved question. Words such as safe, trusted and diversified are conclusions that need supporting reasons. When a field cannot be verified, write what is missing and why that prevents a stronger conclusion. The worked entries are teaching examples rather than recommendations about any real product.
Use the level quizzes to identify areas to revisit. A suggested study target is 80 percent, with every safety-critical error revisited and explained. The website pass rules and publication decision are separate. A corrected explanation matters more than an answer letter.
1 Security checklist
Revisit C0.4 • C2.1 • C2.3 • C2.4 • C2.5
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | What exact asset network and contract are being examined | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Source | How the application and support route are independently verified | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Authority | Who signs and what each requested action grants | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Destination | How recipient address memo and support are checked | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Permissions | How existing allowances or signed permissions are reviewed | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Account protection | How login email device and recovery paths are protected | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Incident categories | How key exposure allowance abuse and provider breach differ | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Pause conditions | Which missing fact or unexplained action stops the process | Record your notes and evidence here |
2 Wallet backup plan
Revisit C2.2 • C2.5
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Recovery design | Phrase threshold guardian or other documented model | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Required components | Placeholder names for every component needed | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Protected locations | How independent backups survive plausible damage or loss | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Compatibility | Verified restoration instructions and supported implementation | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Practice check | How a separate empty practice arrangement tests understanding | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Continuity | How an authorised person finds instructions without public exposure | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Change review | When device participant or household changes trigger review | Record your notes and evidence here |
Section 4 of 7
Workbook: token and provider research
3 Token research template
Revisit C5.1 • C5.2 • C5.3 • C5.4
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and version | Network contract token type and current implementation | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Purpose and rights | Implemented use legal claim and holder benefit mechanism | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Supply method | Circulating total maximum definitions source and timestamp | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Valuation arithmetic | Price market cap FDV basis and their limits | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Allocations and releases | Beneficiaries restrictions overlap and future availability | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Control | Mint freeze upgrade and governance authorities | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Liquidity | Size-specific book or pool evidence including costs | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Security evidence | Review scope code version findings and later changes | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Conclusion | Contrary evidence uncertainty and next permitted research step | Record your notes and evidence here |
4 Exchange risk comparison
Revisit C3.1 • C3.5
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Service roles | Custody matching broker peer-to-peer or contract interface | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Eligibility | Country product and current provider requirements | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Custody and claims | Who holds keys segregation subcontractors and failure rights | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Market costs | Spread depth fee asset and size-specific execution | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Funding and exit | Supported routes limits settlement and review stages | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Evidence scope | Reserve audit registration and insurance documents | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Records and outage | Exports account reconciliation and unavailable-service plan | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Unresolved comparison | What prevents a recommendation or ranking | Record your notes and evidence here |
Section 5 of 7
Workbook: portfolio, scam assessment and research report
5 Portfolio risk policy
Revisit C8.1 • C8.2 • C8.3 • C8.4
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose and affordability | Fictional capital purpose and household boundaries | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Instrument scope | Permitted simulation categories and excluded actions | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Loss calculation | Budget cost allowance price assumptions and rounding | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Concentration | Asset issuer custodian chain bridge and protocol views | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Review and rebalance | Dates or observable bands and treatment of exceptions | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Stress cases | Market falls depeg blocked access and execution failure | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Exit and records | Cash-out route liquidity fees and ledger requirements | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Revision conditions | Facts that require pausing or rewriting the policy | Record your notes and evidence here |
6 Scam assessment
Revisit C0.4 • C2.4 • C2.5 • C7.5
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Message and context | Fictional message text date and claimed sender | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Requested authority | Money secret remote access signature or permission | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Pressure tactic | Deadline guarantee secrecy or emotional leverage | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Independent verification | Known official route separate from the requester | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Decision | Decline pause or verified legitimate follow-up with reasons | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Incident response | Appropriate category if an action already occurred | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Evidence and reporting | Non-secret evidence and verified reporting route | Record your notes and evidence here |
7 Research report
Revisit C7.5 • C9.2 • C9.3 • C9.4 • C10.4
| Field | Question to answer | Your response |
|---|---|---|
| Question and environment | Asset universe venue dates timezone and sources | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Evidence types | Facts observations estimates hypotheses and forecasts | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Rule specification | Signal availability entry exit sizing and no-action rules | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Costs and feasibility | Fees spread depth partial fills and adverse assumptions | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Data discipline | Point-in-time inputs missing data and revision policy | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Results | Complete net ledger sample size expectancy and drawdown | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Benchmark | Matching capital dates currency and disclosed exposure differences | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Contrary evidence | Alternative explanation and invalidation condition | Record your notes and evidence here |
| Conclusion and review | Continue revise or abandon with limitations and date | Record your notes and evidence here |
Final Dossier Review
Final dossier review
Reflection. Write one paragraph explaining what you can now assess, one paragraph identifying remaining uncertainty, and one paragraph stating when you would continue research or decline an action. Include a review date and the evidence that would require revision.
Section 6 of 7
Complete paper-practice ledger and calculator checks
This is a complete arithmetic dataset, not a claim that any market strategy produced these trades. For this worksheet, Rule P assumes one paper observation at each numbered interval, a permitted long simulation, ten-unit linear exposure and a preassigned gross outcome of USD 20 gain or USD 40 loss. Each completed observation incurs USD 1 total modelled costs. The starting balance is USD 1,000, there are no deposits or withdrawals, and all results are closed-trade observations. The rule is frozen for this supplied exercise rather than optimised against the outcomes.
Use the sequence to reproduce win rate, average gain, average loss, expectancy and peak-to-trough drawdown. It does not supply intratrade paths, actual spreads, queue positions or asset returns, so it cannot establish feasible real execution or intratrade maximum drawdown. A genuine empirical test would need the full specification and point-in-time market data from C9.2 and C9.3. The exercise demonstrates accounting and interpretation only.
| Step | Gross USD | Cost USD | Net USD | Equity USD | Peak USD | Drawdown percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 1019.00 | 1019.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 1038.00 | 1038.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | -40.00 | 1.00 | -41.00 | 997.00 | 1038.00 | 3.95 |
| 4 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 1016.00 | 1038.00 | 2.12 |
| 5 | -40.00 | 1.00 | -41.00 | 975.00 | 1038.00 | 6.07 |
| 6 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 994.00 | 1038.00 | 4.24 |
| 7 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 1013.00 | 1038.00 | 2.41 |
| 8 | -40.00 | 1.00 | -41.00 | 972.00 | 1038.00 | 6.36 |
| 9 | +20.00 | 1.00 | +19.00 | 991.00 | 1038.00 | 4.53 |
| 10 | -40.00 | 1.00 | -41.00 | 950.00 | 1038.00 | 8.48 |
All cash flows are fictional. Negative signs represent losses; no external cash flows are assumed.
Ledger interpretation. The complete supplied net ledger peaks at USD 1,038 and ends at USD 950. Maximum observed closed-trade drawdown is about 8.48 percent; intratrade paths are not supplied.
The six positive gross observations become six USD 19 net gains. The four negative observations become four USD 41 net losses. Win rate is 60 percent, average net gain USD 19 and average net loss USD 41 in magnitude. Net total is negative USD 50 and average net outcome is negative USD 5. The complete ledger prevents the winning observations from being reported alone.
The peak is USD 1,038 after observation 2 and the final balance is USD 950. The maximum observed closed-trade drawdown is USD 88 divided by USD 1,038, or approximately 8.48 percent. Returning from USD 950 to that peak would require approximately 9.26 percent growth before costs and cash flows. This is arithmetic, not a likelihood or timetable for recovery.
For a separate supplied benchmark, the same initial USD 1,000 is held in an asset whose final value is two percent lower, with USD 2 total costs, producing USD 978. Fictional zero-interest cash remains USD 1,000. These comparisons match starting capital and the exercise interval, but the hold position and Rule P have different exposure paths. No asset-price series is supplied, so the benchmark is an assumed endpoint comparison rather than a tested strategy. A real report must disclose that distinction.
The process review asks whether all observations were recorded, the rule was kept fixed, costs were included and the stated limitations were preserved. A useful next step is further paper research with genuinely available data and feasible fills. Neither a favourable benchmark nor a later winning sample would automatically validate the asset rights, custody route or affordability of real exposure.
Practice review
Practice review
Section 7 of 7
Everyday example, practice and review
Try the following questions aloud or on paper before opening the worked answers. Compare your reasoning as well as your final answer.
Try it yourself
Try each question on paper or explain your answer aloud before opening the worked answers. This practice is for learning; it is not scored.
1. Name the seven required outputs without using actual account data.
2. Find the inconsistency in calling a bridged lending receipt risk-free cash.
3. State one valid graduation conclusion that involves no real-money action.
Compare with the worked answers
Worked answers
1. Security checklist, wallet backup plan, token research template, exchange-risk comparison, portfolio-risk policy, scam assessment and research report.
2. It carries bridge, lending, receipt, price and access dependencies. Those conflict with the risk-free cash description.
3. The evidence supports understanding the supplied mechanism, but unresolved redemption or contract issues justify continued paper research or declining the activity.
Quick knowledge check
Try each question on paper or explain your answer aloud before opening the worked answers. This practice is for learning; it is not scored.
Must a learner make a real trade or show profit to complete the course?
Compare with the worked answers
Worked answers
No. Graduation requires documented understanding, safe procedure, calculations and honest paper practice.
What to remember
✓ The seven outputs should form one coherent explanation.
✓ Secret-free templates can demonstrate real understanding.
✓ Knowing when to stop is a course skill.
Lesson completion check
References and further reading
References
MIT OpenCourseWare: Blockchain and Money ↗
SEC Investor.gov: Crypto Asset Custody Basics for Retail Investors ↗
CFTC: Understand the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading ↗
Glassnode: Entities metric definitions ↗
Glassnode: Exchange Data Transparency Notice ↗
End of Level 10
You've finished the lessons in this level. Review what you learned before continuing.