---
url: /academy-handbook/foundation/week-4/anchor-mission.md
---
# Week 4 — Anchor Mission

  

::: important Foundation Pilot completion · Sep–Oct 2026
For Foundation Pilot participants, completing this Track Selection Card and
Mini Project Map completes the required pilot curriculum. Stop here. The Deep
Dive belongs to the full Cohort 1 programme beginning in January 2027.
:::

## What you're doing

Two short pieces on one page: a **Track Selection Card**, recording a selected
Builder or Researcher path, and a **Mini Project Map**, showing that you can
place and investigate a real Web3 project. This is not a final PoW proposal.
Your domain, question and final PoW idea may evolve through W5–W6; W7 combines
scope definition with MVP / V1.

For Foundation Pilot learners, this is the final required Foundation output and
a map of what they could build or investigate next. For full-programme learners,
it starts the selected Deep Dive capability path; the PoW topic remains flexible.

::: important This mission is the bridge
Every other Foundation Anchor Mission looked backwards at what you learned. This
one looks forward by asking what kind of work you want to practise and what you
still need to learn. Once selected, the track remains fixed through W8; your
domain or topic may evolve during the Deep Dive.
:::

## What to submit

### Part A — Track Selection Card

A table is fine. One or two lines each.

:::: steps

1. **Selected track** — Builder or Researcher. This remains your Academy path through W8.

2. **Topics or domains currently interesting to you** — name the areas, systems
   or questions that caught your attention in Foundation

3. **Something you may want to build or investigate** — one small possibility,
   not a final project commitment

4. **Current knowledge gaps** — two or three things you do not yet understand
   well enough to work on confidently

5. **Why this track fits** — connect it to the kind of work you want
   to practise
   ::::

### Part B — Mini Project Map

Pick **one** real Web3 project or protocol relevant to your interest. Five short
answers:

:::: steps

1. **What category is it in?** — a sector from [Part 1](./part-1-industry-map.md)

2. **What kind of thing is it?** — network, protocol, company, foundation,
   product, token, or a combination. [Part 2](./part-2-who-is-who.md)

3. **What problem does it solve?** *(1–2 sentences, your own words)*

4. **Name one primary source you used** — docs, GitHub, or governance forum,
   with a link

5. **Name one data or research source that could help evaluate it** — and one
   sentence on what you would look for there
   ::::

::: tip Expected length
**Roughly 250–350 words total.** This is an exploration note, not a report and
not a final PoW scope.

Optional: up to eight image or PDF uploads.
:::

## Submission checklist

* \[ ] My selected track is Builder or Researcher
* \[ ] I recorded topics or domains that currently interest me
* \[ ] I named something I may build or investigate without treating it as final
* \[ ] I listed current knowledge gaps and explained why the track fits the work I want to practise
* \[ ] All five Mini Project Map questions are answered
* \[ ] My primary source in B4 is a real link I actually opened
* \[ ] Part B is in my own words, not copied from the project's marketing
* \[ ] If I used AI, I can explain what it produced and why I agree with it

:::: details For reviewers — what "completed" looks like
This should take three or four minutes to review. The standard is a clear
selection and honest current interests, not a polished project plan.

**Part A standard**

| Field | What good looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Builder or Researcher is named and matches the kind of work the learner wants to practise |
| 2–3 | The interest is concrete enough to guide Deep Dive exploration, without pretending to be final scope |
| 4 | The learner names real gaps rather than claiming expertise |
| 5 | The reason describes the work they want to practise, not prestige |

**Part B standard**

| Field | What good looks like |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | Correct category and entity type. Getting *protocol vs company* right matters — that is [Part 2](./part-2-who-is-who.md)'s core point |
| 3 | Own words, not marketing copy |
| 4 | A **genuine primary source** — official docs, GitHub or governance forum |
| 5 | A sensible data or research source, with a specific reason |

**Send it back if:** the track is missing, the idea is so broad that it gives no
useful starting point, fields are blank, B4 cites a secondary source as primary,
or Part B is copied from the project's own description.

**Do not send it back for:** choosing a modest interest, choosing a domain that
is not currently fashionable, or mapping a well-known protocol.
::::

## If this gets rejected

::: tip Rejection means resubmit — it is not a fail
No deadline, no penalty. You will be told the one thing to fix.
:::

| What happened | The fix |
|---|---|
| No selected track or reason | Choose Builder or Researcher and say what kind of work you want to practise |
| The interest is too broad to guide learning | Name one topic, system or question to explore during the Deep Dive |
| B4 cites a news article or thread as a primary source | Use the project's own docs, code or governance source |
| Part B is copied from marketing material | Rewrite the explanation in your own words |

If you are unsure, describe the idea in the Telegram group. Saying it out loud is
the fastest way to find out what you still need to learn.