1.1 Does your curriculum correctly explain Bitcoin's consensus mechanism (proof-of-work)?
Including difficulty adjustment, block time targeting, and the role of miners vs. nodes.
1.2 Are cryptographic concepts (SHA-256, ECDSA/Schnorr, Merkle trees) explained accurately?
At an appropriate level of detail for your target audience.
1.3 Does your curriculum accurately describe Bitcoin's network architecture?
P2P topology, block propagation, mempool behavior, and node types.
1.4 Is the Bitcoin transaction lifecycle explained correctly, including the UTXO model?
Creation, signing, broadcasting, validation, and confirmation.
1.5 Does your curriculum correctly explain Bitcoin's supply schedule?
Halving mechanism, 21 million cap, stock vs. flow.
2.1 Does your curriculum include a substantive overview of monetary history?
Evolution from commodity money to representative money to fiat currency.
2.2 Are the properties of sound money explicitly defined and applied to Bitcoin?
Durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, scarcity, acceptability.
2.3 Does the curriculum compare Bitcoin with existing monetary systems?
Fiat currencies, gold standard — in a structured, evidence-based manner.
2.4 Are economic risks and criticisms of Bitcoin presented alongside its merits?
Volatility, deflationary concerns, wealth concentration, energy expenditure.
2.5 Does the curriculum address inflation/deflation dynamics with Bitcoin's fixed supply?
Including acknowledgment of economic debate around these topics.
3.1 Does your curriculum have a clearly stated scope, target audience, and program level?
Introductory, intermediate, advanced, or professional.
3.2 Does the curriculum build in progressive complexity?
Foundational concepts established before advanced material.
3.3 Does the curriculum include both theoretical knowledge and practical application?
Setting up wallets, verifying transactions, running nodes, etc.
3.4 Does the curriculum cover Bitcoin's history and key events?
Whitepaper, genesis block, forks, scaling debate, adoption milestones.
3.5 Does the curriculum include a module on security best practices?
Key management, hardware wallets, backup procedures, social engineering awareness.
4.1 Does every module have clearly stated, measurable learning objectives?
Using action verbs: explain, demonstrate, analyze, compare.
4.2 Does the curriculum employ varied assessment methods?
Quizzes, assignments, projects, discussions, practical exercises.
4.3 Are active learning strategies incorporated?
Problem-based learning, case studies, simulations, peer teaching, labs.
4.4 Are real-world examples and case studies used to contextualize concepts?
Making abstract concepts concrete and memorable.
4.5 Is there documentation enabling consistent delivery by different instructors?
Instructor guide, facilitator manual, or equivalent.
5.1 Does your curriculum disclose all material conflicts of interest?
Bitcoin holdings, commercial relationships, funding sources.
5.2 Does the curriculum present Bitcoin's risks alongside its strengths?
Volatility, regulatory uncertainty, UX challenges, environmental criticism.
5.3 Is the curriculum free from promotion of specific commercial products?
No endorsements of specific exchanges, wallets, or services.
5.4 Does the curriculum avoid maximalist rhetoric and hyperbolic language?
Tone should be professorial, not promotional.
6.1 Has the curriculum been substantively updated within the past 12 months?
More than fixing typos — actual content review and changes.
6.2 Does the curriculum reflect the current state of Bitcoin's protocol?
Recent upgrades like Taproot, descriptor wallets, recent BIPs.
6.3 Are recent ecosystem developments included?
Lightning Network maturity, ETFs, regulatory changes, institutional adoption.
6.4 Is there a formal process for periodic content review and updates?
Review schedule, assigned owner, change log.
7.1 Is the curriculum written in clear, plain language?
Technical terms defined when introduced, glossary provided.
7.2 Is the curriculum available in multiple formats?
Text, video, audio, interactive — at least two primary formats.
7.3 Does the curriculum use diverse, representative examples?
Use cases from different countries, economic contexts, demographics.
7.4 Does the curriculum consider economic accessibility?
Free/reduced access, no expensive hardware requirements.
8.1 Does the curriculum teach security best practices accurately and prominently?
Key management, seed phrases, hardware wallets, avoiding attacks.
8.2 Does the curriculum responsibly disclose the risks of Bitcoin ownership?
Volatility, irreversibility, key loss, regulatory risk — prominent, not buried.
8.3 Does the curriculum address the environmental impact honestly?
Including both criticism and counterarguments, evidence-based.
8.4 Does the curriculum teach learners to verify information independently?
"Don't trust, verify" — building critical thinking, not authority dependence.