Crypto-Asset / Blockchain Expert Needed to Fact-Check German-Language Training Material

Description Please read first: the material is written in German. All documents to be reviewed are in German. You must be able to read German technical and regulatory text fluently and with confidence. Your comments may be written in either German or English — but if you cannot read German, this project is not a fit, regardless of your subject-matter expertise. Machine translation is not a workable substitute here, because much of the review concerns nuance and precision of wording. Background I am developing a training programme on crypto-assets for staff in the financial sector. The regulatory driver is the MiCA Regulation and the ESMA guidelines on knowledge and competence. The modules are fully drafted. Before delivery, I want a qualified external expert to check them for factual accuracy. Scope of work Two modules will be reviewed: Module 1 (Technology and Infrastructure) and Module 2 (Markets and Economics). Each consists of a script of roughly 70 pages, a case study, and a set of demanding multiple-choice questions with detailed explanations. I am looking for: factually incorrect or outdated statements on technology, market mechanics and crypto economics unwarranted generalisations and absolute statements that require qualification statements on regulatory matters that are imprecise or misleading in the MiCA context factual errors in the multiple-choice questions and their explanations missing context without which a statement would mislead a learner Explicitly out of scope Spelling, grammar, style and phrasing. Layout and graphic design. Completeness against a curriculum. Legal advice or legally binding statements. These areas are covered separately and should not be commented on. Who I am looking for Substantial subject-matter depth in crypto-assets, blockchain technology or digital-asset regulation — for example from working at a crypto service provider, in the compliance function of a financial institution, at a supervisory authority, in research, or in comparable practice. Fluent reading comprehension of German is a hard requirement. An academic title is not required; demonstrable substance is. Using AI tools as support is expressly permitted. What matters is your professional judgement about which findings are actually relevant; every objection must be briefly justified. Process and terms A short video call of about 20 minutes before the engagement. Then a contract with a cap of approximately 8 hours per module. Deliverable: a Word file with comments — each stating what is being flagged, why it is factually problematic, and a suggested rewording — plus a summary report of no more than two pages. The working period is the week of 24 to 28 August 2026. During that week my availability is limited, so open questions should be raised as comments in the document rather than by email. Confidentiality The material is confidential. A short non-disclosure agreement will be signed before handover. The end client is not named and is not identifiable from the material. If you are interested, please briefly describe where your subject-matter experience comes from and answer the screening questions. A follow-on engagement for a further module is planned. Screening questions What was your most recent project involving crypto-assets, and what was the hardest technical or regulatory judgement call in it? Where would you most expect to find factual errors in training material written for bank staff? How do you handle a statement that is not clearly wrong, but heavily simplified?