The Madness Behind My Crypto Curation Method
It amuses me that, in 2022, there are people who still don’t understand the fine art of curation. Now, I don’t claim to be a genius. I missed that mark in my 20s!
Nevertheless, it must be said that there is a difference, a stark one at that, between news reporting and news curation. News reporting is finding something interesting to inform readers about, researching it, conducting interviews, and telling an original story that enlightens, entertains, and provides value to readers in some way. News curation, on the other hand, requires little research or interviews. In fact, the art isn’t in the originality of content but in the packaging of other people’s content to create an altogether new and original product from the ground up.
Why is that important? It’s necessary to state because that’s what Cryptocracy is all about. This newsletter is not about reporting the news so much as it is in curating content about cryptocurrencies.
How I Put Together an Issue of Cryptocracy
In one sense, what I do is nothing spectacular. I curate the most important or most relevant news and insights on cryptocurrencies for each issue. But I don’t simply compile a list of random links, though it may seem that way.
For each issue, I scour the web looking for content on cryptocurrencies, digital assets, and related topics. My goal is not to highlight everything anyone says about crypto in the last 24 hours. Rather, my criteria involves three things:
Relevance to my audience of crypto enthusiasts
Anything interesting or extraordinary
Content diversity
Let’s break these down.
What do I mean by relevance? When I say relevance, what I mean is it must be about crypto in some way. The heart of the story may be about cryptocurrencies, or a specific crypto project, or crypto may be at the fringe edge of the topic. But the news article, video, or media content must be related to crypto.
Is it interesting or extraordinary? Cryptocracy is compiled from my point of view. Therefore, if it’s interesting to me, then I assume it will be interesting to my audience. Of course, I do understand that I won’t please everyone with every issue. I will likely not please everyone with every link I include. Someone is going to take issue with my including stories about Polygon, Avalanche, or another crypto project; that I include articles or video content that is favorable toward banks; or that I use content from a particular publication because, as one reader put it, that publication has lost its way. Quite frankly, I am agnostic about projects, publications, and institutions. My concern is not whether the content I curate is favorable or disfavorable toward a particular group, entity, project, corporation, publication, etc. My concern is whether the content is interesting in some way, and quite often that means it is contrarian in point of view. It may also mean it appeals to a large cross-section of crypto enthusiasts. It could even be—gasp!—controversial.
Content diversity is very important. I do my best to compile information from a variety of sources in each issue. I don’t want every link to come from CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph. Sometimes, a particular issue may be heavily tilted with content from one particular publication. I’m not counting mentions. In other words, I don’t look to see how many pieces of content come from one publication. However, if I feel like an issue is leaning hard toward one publication and some of the content from that publication is heavily reported elsewhere, then I may opt for the more obscure publication on one or two of those links. I try my best to include content from lesser known sources and not just the big name publications.
In short, my goal is to create a special product with each issue of Cryptocracy that delivers value to readers by highlighting the most important, interesting, and relevant crypto news of the day from a diversity of sources.
Order of Content is Very Important
In each issue of Cryptocracy, I try to think like a newspaper editor. Since I’ve been a newspaper editor, that’s not difficult. What that means, practically, is that I attempt to order content in an inverted pyramid style.
That’s why news and information regarding Bitcoin or Ethereum will almost always be at the top. While relevance to my audience is important, I’m aware that relevance is subjective and shows up on a sliding scale. Some content may be more relevant to certain segments of my audience. And not all relevant content is equal to all segments of my audience. My hope is that everyone can find something of interest to them in each issue of Cryptocracy even if every link doesn’t appeal to them.
I’m also aware that Cryptocracy is self-consciously U.S.-centric. Most of the content is relevant to a U.S.-based audience, however, I do include news and information of international importance. I make a point to.
Still, U.S.-based content will be closer to the top of the pyramid while content related to third-world nations will be closer to the bottom.
Regarding the pyramid, I factor in project-specific news as more important than features and insightful commentary. A long analysis of an obscure part of crypto may be a very interesting read, but it’s not likely to be at the top of the issue. I do highlight, however, in bold type, content that is super-interesting or what I’d consider an incredible read. In other words, if you’re a total crypto nerd, you’ll likely find it interesting, but that doesn’t mean you’ll agree with every point the author makes—nor do I!
Bear in mind that such content is not included because I agree or disagree with it, but only that it’s interesting.
When helpful, or I get the urge, I do comment on content included in Cryptocracy. I may agree or disagree with the content or perspective. If I have a strong opinion, I’ll included it, but I make a point to distinguish my views from the views of those whose content I include by putting my views in italics. I do this for the sake of clarity. It’s okay if readers disagree with me.
Hopefully, Cryptocracy readers have a better understanding of my intent with this newsletter after getting some insight into my thought process.
Two More Things …
Finally, I want to talk about titles and subtitles for Cryptocracy.
Because I come from a newspaper background, I believe the headline should give readers some since of what to expect from the content. I don’t do this perfectly and I’m conscious of that. However, I’d like to discuss my approach.
One way of titling each issue could be to title them Crypto Digests. For instance, I could title each issue Crypto Digest #1, Crypto Digest #2, etc. But I think that’s not very creative even though it does do the job of telling readers precisely what Cryptocracy is all about.
Another approach, and the one I’ve decided to take, is to title each issue of Cryptocracy after the lead story or one of the most interesting reads. The downside to this is that readers don’t necessarily get the full scope of the issue’s content from the title. They’re simply told what the lead story is about, or what the most interesting read is about.
I don’t do it this way because I wish to click-bait my audience. That’s a cheap way to get attention. I’ve done it that way thus far because it simply fit in with my approach to curating the news and analysis of the day. I’m open to reconsideration.
The second thing is that Cryptocracy is decentralized. What that means is I publish first at Substack, the home base if you will, and then republish on various cryptosocial media platforms. Currently, that includes Bastyon, gFam, Hive, Publish0x, Read.Cash, Noise.Cash, and Torum. On Noise.Cash and Torum, I simply include a snippet and link back to Substack (Torum) or Read.Cash (Noise).
When I republish on each of the platforms, I re-title the piece specific to that platform while maintaining the practice of highlighting the most relevant, important, or interesting content of the day. Again, that’s been my approach but I’m open to reconsideration.
One caveat: By titling Cryptocracy that way, there is no intent to say that I agree with the authors of the piece that the title highlights. I have to title each issue something, so I use the newspaper editor approach.
Call to Action
I’m open to feedback on this approach. If you’d like to make a suggestion on ways I can improve Cryptocracy, I’d love your feedback. Feel free to comment on this post wherever you’re reading it, or, if you receive Cryptocracy by email, then reply to the email with your suggestion.
I’d also be delighted if you’d show your appreciation for my efforts with a contribution. It does take time to create Cryptocracy and I’m a working man. You can contribute in a number of ways.
First, if you read Cryptocracy on any of the cryptosocial platforms where it publishes, then you can like, upvote, or tip me according to that platform’s blockchain-based mechanism and that would be much appreciated. If you subscribe by email, you can contribute by joining as a paid subscriber. At this point, all paid subscribers receive the same content as free subscribers, but I’m considering how to reward paid subscribers in the future. If you join now as a paid subscriber, you’ll receive a 40 percent discount on your paid subscription. That’s my way of saying thank you for supporting my work.
My Final Note - Fa la la la la laaaa
And one final note that I don’t want to be remiss about: A very big thank you to readers who are already showing appreciation with their tips, likes, votes, and other contributions. You are very much appreciated!
Until next time,
Allen Taylor
Chief Cryptocrat
Cryptocracy is a decentralized newsletter published several times a week. I curate the latest news and crypto analysis from some of the brightest minds in crypto, and sometimes offer a little insightful and snarky commentary. Always fresh, always interesting, and always crypto.
First published at Cryptocracy. Not to be construed as financial advice.
