By @XlusiveWeb3 | August 2026
Let me tell you what most people do when they see a writing job on WURK.
They read the title. Maybe the first two lines of the description. Then they open ChatGPT, paste what they half-read, get a generic response, and submit it without reading a single word of what the AI produced.
Then they wonder why they keep losing.
I have a 96% win rate on writing challenges on WURK. I have written articles that the WURK team shared on their official pages. I have completed private writing jobs for projects, documented historic moments in the Solana ecosystem, and published work on Bulb, Publish0x, and X that reached thousands of readers.
None of that happened because I have a special gift. It happened because I follow a process that most people skip entirely.
This is that process. All of it. Step by step.
First, Understand What Is Actually Being Asked
Before you write a single word, before you even think about what you want to say, read the job description fully. Not once. Twice.
Most people skip this step or rush through it. That is why most submissions miss the point completely.
When you read the description, you are looking for specific things:
What does the creator actually want? Not just the topic; the angle, the tone, the purpose. Is this a technical explainer? A promotional piece? A personal story? An educational guide? The same topic can be written ten different ways and only one of them is what the creator needs.
What are the hard requirements? Minimum word count. Required sections. Specific information that must be included. Tags. Format. Platform to publish on. Missing even one of these can get an otherwise strong submission rejected.
What is the deadline? This shapes everything. A two-day window requires a different approach than a two-week window. Know how much time you have and plan accordingly. Rushed work shows. Always.
Write every required point down before you move to the next step. Not in your head, on paper or in a notes app. This becomes your checklist.
Develop Your Angle Before You Research
Here is something most people never think about: the best articles are not the most informative ones. They are the ones with a clear point of view.
Before you start gathering information, decide how you are going to approach the topic. What angle makes this interesting? What perspective makes it different from what everyone else will submit?
Some angles that consistently work in Web3 writing:
The contrast angle, comparing two things to reveal something true about both. The problem-solution angle, stating a real problem clearly before introducing what solves it. The story angle, using a real event or real person to illustrate a larger point. The counter-narrative angle, taking a widely held belief and complicating it with evidence.
When I wrote about WURK's first real-world AI agent task, I did not write "here is what happened." I wrote "AI didn't take his job, it gave him one." That angle made the same facts hit completely differently. It is the reason that article got pinned, shared, and read 3,000 times.
Jot your angle ideas down alongside your checklist. You do not need to commit yet, just have options ready before you start researching.
Research — The Longest Step and the Most Important One
This is where most writers, even experienced ones, cut corners. Do not cut corners here.
For any Web3 writing job, your research should cover all of the following:
The project's official website. Read it properly. Not skimmed — read. The language they use, the problems they say they solve, the claims they make about their product. Take notes on exact phrasing. The best articles reflect the project's own voice back at the reader while adding independent analysis on top of it.
Their social media. X, Telegram, Discord; wherever they are active. What are they posting about right now? What announcements have they made recently? What language does their community use? This tells you what is current and what the audience already knows versus what needs explaining.
Any available documentation. Whitepapers, docs pages, blog posts, GitHub if relevant. If the job involves technical concepts; tokenomics, protocol mechanics, payment standards, you need to understand them well enough to explain them simply. If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough yet.
Independent sources. CoinGecko, DeFiLlama, Messari, relevant news coverage. Numbers and claims from the project itself should be verified against independent data wherever possible. If you cite a metric, it should be real.
Previous writing on the topic. What has already been written? What angles have already been taken? This helps you avoid repeating what exists and find the gap your article can fill.
Notice how long this section is? That is intentional.
Information gathering is the hardest and most important part of the entire process. Everything you write later is only as strong as the foundation you build here.
Do not start writing until you are genuinely satisfied with what you have gathered and have verified that everything you plan to use is accurate.
Composing Your AI Prompt — Yes, Use AI. But Use It Correctly.
AI tools exist and pretending otherwise is foolish. ChatGPT, Grok, Claude; they are all useful. But the way most people use them is the reason most AI-assisted submissions are immediately recognizable as generic filler.
The difference is in how you prompt.
A bad prompt looks like this: "Write an article about [project name]."
What you get is a hollow, surface-level piece that could have been written about any project, by anyone, about anything.
A good prompt looks like this:
"I am writing a [type of article] about [project name]. Here is the specific information I have gathered about them: [paste your research notes]. The angle I want to take is [your angle]. The audience is [describe who will read this]. Write a draft in a conversational but professional tone, using only the information I have provided plus anything you can independently verify. Do not invent statistics or make claims that cannot be confirmed."
Feed it everything; your research notes, the required points from the job description, your angle, the tone you want. The more specific and structured your prompt, the more usable the output.
When you get the response, read every word of it. Do not skip this. Ask yourself:
Is every fact in here accurate and verifiable? Is anything exaggerated or invented? Does this actually answer what the job description asked for? Does it cover every required point on my checklist? Does it read like something a real person wrote or like something a machine generated on autopilot?
If anything fails those questions, fix it before moving on.
Make It Sound Like You
This is the step that separates a good submission from a winning one.
After editing for accuracy and completeness, read the draft out loud, or at least read it as if you were going to read it out loud. Ask yourself honestly: does this sound like me?
Generic AI output has a recognizable texture. Overly formal transitions. Sentences that start with "In conclusion" or "It is worth noting that." Paragraphs that all run the same length. Ideas that flow in a predictable order without any personality behind them.
Your job is to break that texture. Rewrite the sentences that sound like no human would say them. Add the specific detail that only someone who actually researched this project would know. Cut anything that is vague or that could apply to any project in any industry.
The goal is an article that, if someone removed your name from it, readers who know your work would still recognize as yours.
Format Before You Publish
Writing the content is only part of the job. How it looks when it lands in front of a reader matters more than most people realize.
Before publishing, do all of the following:
Use clear headers that tell the reader what each section is about. Keep paragraphs short; three to five sentences at most. On a phone screen, a wall of text is the fastest way to lose a reader. Add a cover image that is relevant and visually strong. The cover is the first thing anyone sees and it determines whether they click.
Include any screenshots, references, or links that make the piece more credible. For WURK writing jobs specifically, linking to the project's official X account, website, or relevant announcements adds credibility and shows you did the work.
Do a final read for errors; spelling, grammar, formatting inconsistencies, broken links. Then check one more time that every fact you published is accurate.
Only then publish and submit.
What This Looks Like in Practice — Real Examples
Everything in this guide is based on my actual process. Here is what it produced:
When I covered the Cluster Protocol and Mind Network partnership, I spent time on both projects' websites, read their official announcement blog, researched FHE technology independently, and verified every technical claim before writing a single sentence. The result was a piece that explained a complex privacy infrastructure partnership accurately enough that the projects themselves could have published it.
You can read it here: https://x.com/XlusiveWeb3/status/2073480964173693160
When I documented WURK's first real-world AI agent task, I went further; I requested a direct interview with the WURK builder, gathered timestamped chat screenshots as primary source material, and structured the piece as an investigative report rather than a blog post. That approach produced something no other writer could have produced from the same starting point, because nobody else did the same level of research.
You can read it here: https://x.com/XlusiveWeb3/status/2075600351307215262
Both of those articles followed the exact process described in this guide. Neither was produced by pasting a job description into an AI and submitting the output.
The Short Version
If you take nothing else from this guide, take this:
Read the job description fully — twice. Write down every requirement before you start. Develop your angle before you research. Research thoroughly and verify everything. Prompt AI with structured, specific inputs not lazy one-liners. Read and edit the output critically. Make it sound like you wrote it. Format it properly before publishing.
The writers who win consistently on WURK are not the ones with the most natural talent. They are the ones who treat every submission like it matters, because on a platform where creator selection determines who gets paid, it always does.
The process is the skill. Now you have it.
Written by @XlusiveWeb3 Web3 Content Creator | Solana Projects and Micro-Tasks | Writing Articles and Strategies for Crypto Builders Follow on X: @XlusiveWeb3 | Explore WURK: wurk.fun
Latest comments
0