Interview scorecard template

Crypto Asset Manager interview scorecard

Evaluate Crypto Asset Manager candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical command, deals and deliverables that closed, risk judgement, and explaining it to decision-makers. Technical command leads at 35%, so check command of portfolio construction across BTC, ETH, alts and stables: position sizing, on-chain valuation metrics (MVRV, realised cap), perp funding rates, basis. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
finance riskcustody securitydefi yielddigital assetsportfolio construction
TL;DR
For technical command, look for evidence the candidate explains sizing rules, funding and basis mechanics, and on-chain metrics they actually track, with reasoning tied to specific market regimes. For deals and deliverables that closed, look for evidence the candidate cites AUM figures, benchmark relative performance, worst drawdown and recovery, and names the strategies that generated the return. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Technical command

35% weight

Check command of portfolio construction across BTC, ETH, alts and stables: position sizing, on-chain valuation metrics (MVRV, realised cap), perp funding rates, basis trades and staking yield mechanics.

Evidence to listen for

  • Commands the instruments, models, or reporting standards the role turns on
  • Can build the analysis rather than only interpret someone else's
  • Knows the assumptions inside a model and which ones actually drive the answer
  • Fluent in the frameworks and disclosure regimes that apply

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the instruments or standards they claim to work with.

2
Needs Improvement

Interprets others' analysis but cannot build or defend it.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working command; thin on unfamiliar structures or standards.

4
Very Good

Builds the analysis and knows which assumptions actually move the answer.

5
Excellent

Explains sizing rules, funding and basis mechanics, and on-chain metrics they actually track, with reasoning tied to specific market regimes.

02
Evaluation factor

Deals and deliverables that closed

25% weight

Probe AUM managed, mandate type (fund, SMA, treasury), realised returns versus BTC benchmark, drawdown depth in 2022 or 2025, and rebalancing cadence.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names transactions, filings, or reports they worked, with size, counterparties, and their own scope
  • Distinguishes their contribution from the deal team's
  • Knows what happened afterwards, including what underperformed
  • Can describe one that fell over and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No completed work; describes process rather than outcomes.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in transactions but cannot state their own scope.

3
Satisfactory

Real deliverables with adequate ownership; outcomes described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named transactions or filings with clear personal scope and honest post-mortems.

5
Excellent

Cites AUM figures, benchmark relative performance, worst drawdown and recovery, and names the strategies that generated the return.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

25% weight

Assess how they handle custody and counterparty risk: multisig or MPC setup, exchange exposure limits, smart contract audit review, depeg and liquidation thresholds.

Evidence to listen for

  • Distinguishes a modelled risk from a real one
  • States confidence and what would change their view
  • Comfortable disagreeing with a number that suits everybody
  • Knows the limits of the data behind a projection, especially over long horizons

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats model output as truth; no sense of data limits.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports numbers without qualifying them; avoids unwelcome conclusions.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

States confidence unprompted and will hold an unpopular position on evidence.

5
Excellent

Describes concrete limits and kill switches, names venues they exited pre-collapse, and separates protocol risk from market risk clearly.

04
Evaluation factor

Explaining it to decision-makers

15% weight

Test how they brief LPs, boards or treasury committees on volatility, MiCA or SEC classification questions, NAV reporting and fee structures without hype or jargon.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains a technical position to an investment committee, board, or regulator so they can act on it
  • Writes to the standard the audience is held to
  • Handles challenge without either caving or digging in
  • Works across legal, operations, and external counterparties

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate beyond technical peers.

2
Needs Improvement

Explanations lose the audience or oversimplify to the point of error.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate with familiar audiences; less effective under challenge.

4
Very Good

Explains clearly to committees and regulators and holds up under challenge.

5
Excellent

Translates on-chain and derivatives exposure into plain risk language, and has defended a loss quarter to allocators without losing the mandate.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Crypto Asset Manager

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What is your experience managing crypto assets?

  2. 02

    What past performance can you share about your crypto asset management?

  3. 03

    Can you provide examples of times you navigated market downturns?

  4. 04

    Can you provide an overview of your investment strategy in the cryptocurrency market?

  5. 05

    How do you evaluate the risk associated with different cryptocurrencies?

See the complete Crypto Asset Manager question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards