Interview scorecard template

Web3 Experience Strategist interview scorecard

Evaluate Web3 Experience Strategist candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review shipped web3 work: wallet connect flows, NFT mint journeys, DAO governance dashboards or DeFi onboarding. Ask for live dApp links, user counts and drop-off rates. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationdapp uxtoken incentiveswallet onboardingweb3
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows named live products with wallet activation numbers, seed phrase onboarding flows and measurable reductions in transaction abandonment. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains each flow decision against user trust, irreversibility of on-chain actions and specific wallet constraints like MetaMask or Rainbow. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Review shipped web3 work: wallet connect flows, NFT mint journeys, DAO governance dashboards or DeFi onboarding. Ask for live dApp links, user counts and drop-off rates at signing steps.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows named live products with wallet activation numbers, seed phrase onboarding flows and measurable reductions in transaction abandonment.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test reasoning behind gas fee disclosure, seed phrase custody choices, transaction signing copy and progressive disclosure for non-crypto users. Probe why they chose custodial versus self-custody patterns.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains each flow decision against user trust, irreversibility of on-chain actions and specific wallet constraints like MetaMask or Rainbow.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Ask how they responded to Discord feedback, testnet user sessions, token holder complaints or analytics from Dune dashboards, and what they changed after launch.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites concrete revisions driven by community feedback or on-chain data, including flows they abandoned when metrics contradicted their assumptions.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Probe collaboration with smart contract engineers and token economists: how they scoped experience strategy against protocol constraints, audit timelines and treasury or roadmap limits.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Translates protocol and contract limitations into a clear experience strategy, negotiating scope with founders and engineers without vague crypto jargon.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Web3 Experience Strategist

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

  1. 01

    Can you share examples of projects you have led and what the outcomes were?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your experience designing or delivering token-based products?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience with decentralised organisations and their governance?

  4. 04

    Can you explain how decentralised applications differ from conventional ones?

  5. 05

    Could you share your experience working with smart contracts?

See the complete Web3 Experience Strategist 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