Total Points: 50 | Weight: 5% of Course Grade

Quick Reference

  • Chronological Order (15 pts): Accuracy of timeline arrangement
  • Pivotal Moments Analysis (15 pts): Identification and reasoning for 3 key events
  • Future Prediction (10 pts): Quality and justification of 2026-2030 prediction
  • Presentation (10 pts): Clarity, organization, and engagement

Submission Requirements: Photo of timeline + written document (1-2 pages) + 5-minute presentation

1. Chronological Order Accuracy 15 Points

Assessment Focus: How accurately did the team arrange the 15 events in chronological order?

Excellent 13-15 pts
14-15 events correctly ordered. All major dependencies understood (e.g., public-key crypto before Bitcoin, Ethereum before DeFi). Minor errors only in events from the same year.
Good 10-12 pts
11-13 events correctly ordered. Generally understands technological dependencies. 2-4 events misplaced, but no major logical errors (e.g., DeFi before Ethereum).
Satisfactory 7-9 pts
8-10 events correctly ordered. Some understanding of dependencies, but several misplacements. May have 1 major logical error.
Needs Improvement 0-6 pts
Fewer than 8 events correctly ordered. Multiple major logical errors. Shows limited understanding of technological dependencies.
2. Pivotal Moments - Identification & Reasoning 15 Points

Assessment Focus: Quality of the team's selection and justification of the 3 most pivotal moments.

Excellent 13-15 pts
Identifies genuinely pivotal events (e.g., Bitcoin whitepaper, Ethereum launch, DeFi Summer). Provides sophisticated reasoning connecting events to downstream impacts. Demonstrates understanding of how each moment enabled future developments. Clear cause-and-effect analysis.
Good 10-12 pts
Identifies important events with solid reasoning. Explanations show understanding of historical significance. May mix pivotal moments with merely important ones, but justifications are reasonable and demonstrate critical thinking.
Satisfactory 7-9 pts
Identifies relevant events but reasoning is basic or superficial. Explanations may focus on "what happened" rather than "why it matters." Limited connection to broader impacts on the field.
Needs Improvement 0-6 pts
Identifies less pivotal events or provides weak reasoning. Explanations lack depth or demonstrate misunderstanding of significance. Minimal critical analysis.
3. Future Prediction Quality 10 Points

Assessment Focus: Quality of the team's 2026-2030 prediction and how well it's justified using historical patterns.

Excellent 9-10 pts
Prediction is plausible, specific, and grounded in historical trends. Clear connection to timeline patterns (e.g., regulation follows adoption, technical solutions address previous limitations). Identifies current gaps or emerging trends. Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the field's trajectory.
Good 7-8 pts
Reasonable prediction with some justification from timeline. Makes connections to historical patterns but may be somewhat generic (e.g., "more regulation" without specifics). Shows understanding of current trends.
Satisfactory 5-6 pts
Prediction is plausible but lacks strong justification. Minimal connection to historical patterns. May be too vague or not well-defended with evidence.
Needs Improvement 0-4 pts
Prediction is implausible, too vague, or unsupported. Little to no connection to historical patterns. Demonstrates limited understanding of the field's direction.
4. Presentation Clarity & Organization 10 Points

Assessment Focus: Quality of the 5-minute presentation and written submission.

Excellent 9-10 pts
Clear, well-organized presentation within time limit. All team members contribute. Effectively communicates timeline, pivotal moments, and prediction. Engages audience. Written document is professional, complete, and well-formatted.
Good 7-8 pts
Organized presentation covering all required elements. Most team members contribute. Communicates main points effectively. Written document is complete and clear, though may have minor formatting issues.
Satisfactory 5-6 pts
Presentation covers required content but may be disorganized or run over/under time. Uneven team participation. Written document is complete but lacks polish or has organizational issues.
Needs Improvement 0-4 pts
Presentation is unclear, incomplete, or poorly organized. Minimal team participation. Written document is incomplete, poorly formatted, or missing required elements.

Grading Guidelines for Instructors

General Principles

  • Focus on reasoning over "correctness": Multiple pivotal moments can be validly argued. Grade based on quality of justification, not whether they match the suggested answer key.
  • Allow for ambiguity: Some events (especially those in the same year) have ambiguous ordering. Don't penalize reasonable arrangements.
  • Reward critical thinking: A well-defended unconventional choice is better than a poorly explained conventional one.
  • Team grade: All team members receive the same grade unless there's clear evidence of non-participation.

Common Grading Scenarios

  • Wrong order but good reasoning: If timeline is incorrect but pivotal moment analysis is strong, allocate more points to analysis category.
  • Correct order but shallow analysis: High chronology points, lower analysis points. Encourage deeper thinking in feedback.
  • Creative predictions: Don't penalize unconventional predictions if well-justified (e.g., "quantum computing breaks blockchain" with good reasoning).
  • Time management issues: If presentation runs significantly over (>6 min) or under (<4 min), deduct 1-2 points from presentation score.

Required Submission Components (Check for Completion)

  • Photo of physical timeline arrangement
  • Written document with:
    • Chronological list of all 15 events
    • 3 pivotal moments with explanations (3-4 sentences each)
    • Future prediction with justification (1 paragraph)
    • Team member names and roles
  • 5-minute in-class presentation

Missing any major component: deduct 5-10 points depending on severity.

Feedback Recommendations

  • Highlight specific strengths in their reasoning
  • Point out any major chronological errors and explain the dependencies
  • Suggest additional considerations for their pivotal moment choices
  • Encourage deeper analysis of cause-and-effect relationships
  • For predictions, note how well they connected to historical patterns
Category Points Key Assessment Criteria
Chronological Order 15 Accuracy of timeline arrangement, understanding of dependencies
Pivotal Moments Analysis 15 Quality of event selection, depth of reasoning, cause-effect understanding
Future Prediction 10 Plausibility, specificity, connection to historical patterns
Presentation & Documentation 10 Clarity, organization, completeness, team participation
TOTAL 50

© Joerg Osterrieder 2025-2026. All rights reserved.