Building Your Research Workflow
Learning Objectives
Implement a three-horizon research workflow
Build efficient monitoring systems for ongoing information
Create a knowledge management architecture
Establish review and improvement processes
Balance thoroughness with sustainability
Individual research skills matter, but systems multiply their value. A skilled researcher with poor processes produces inconsistent output. A systematic researcher with solid skills produces reliable, improving results over time.
This lesson takes everything from Phase 1 and integrates it into a workflow you can actually maintain.
THREE RESEARCH HORIZONS:
HORIZON 1: REAL-TIME MONITORING
Timeframe: Daily (15-30 minutes)
Purpose: Awareness, alert detection
Focus: News, alerts, major developments
Output: Topic identification, awareness
HORIZON 2: ACTIVE ANALYSIS
Timeframe: Weekly (2-4 hours)
Purpose: Deep dives, data updates
Focus: Significant developments, metrics
Output: Analysis notes, data updates
HORIZON 3: STRATEGIC REVIEW
Timeframe: Monthly/Quarterly (4-8 hours)
Purpose: Thesis reassessment
Focus: Comprehensive updates
Output: Thesis revision, risk review
DAILY MONITORING PROTOCOL:
TIME: 15-30 minutes
MORNING SCAN:
□ Court docket check (if active case)
□ Ripple official channels
□ Quick news scan
□ Price/basic metrics check
ALERT REVIEW:
□ Any triggered alerts?
□ Significant overnight developments?
□ Items flagged for deeper analysis?
- Note any items requiring Horizon 2 attention
- Log significant developments
- Most days: "No significant developments"
WEEKLY ANALYSIS PROTOCOL:
TIME: 2-4 hours
DEEP DIVES:
□ Any topics flagged from daily monitoring?
□ Follow up on significant developments
□ Primary source verification if needed
DATA UPDATES:
□ Update key metrics dashboard
□ Note any trend changes
□ Compare to expectations
COMPETITIVE CHECK:
□ Any competitor developments?
□ Market structure changes?
□ Industry news
- Analysis notes on significant topics
- Updated data dashboard
- Items for monthly review
MONTHLY REVIEW:
Time: 2 hours
□ Thesis validity check
□ Assumption status review
□ Risk register update
□ Competitive landscape summary
□ Position sizing assessment
QUARTERLY REVIEW:
Time: 4-6 hours
□ Full thesis review
□ All assumptions evaluated
□ Scenario probabilities updated
□ Comprehensive risk assessment
□ Research process evaluation
□ Next quarter planning
```
MONITORING LAYERS:
- Court filing alerts (PACER/CourtListener)
- SEC announcements
- Ripple official (RSS/alerts)
- GitHub activity
- On-chain large movements
- Major news sources
- Legal commentators
- Data provider updates
- Research publications
- Curated Twitter list (not timeline)
- Reddit quick scan
- Telegram/Discord for sentiment
- XRP skeptics
- Competitor news
- Bear case updates
ALERT CONFIGURATION:
- CourtListener case alerts
- SEC RSS feeds
- Google Alerts: "Ripple" + "SEC"
- Ripple blog RSS
- Twitter notifications (Ripple official)
- Google Alerts: "XRP" (limited)
- Crypto news feeds (curated)
- Large transaction alerts (optional)
- Escrow release monitoring
- Specific topics of interest
- Competitor names
- Key executives
---
RESEARCH PROCESS FLOW:
DEFINE (5% of time):
What question am I answering?
What would good answer look like?
What sources might help?
GATHER (30% of time):
Collect relevant information
Start with primary sources
Add quality secondary
Note gaps
VERIFY (20% of time):
Apply verification protocol
Cross-reference claims
Check source credibility
Flag uncertainties
ANALYZE (25% of time):
Synthesize information
Apply frameworks
Develop conclusions
Note limitations
DOCUMENT (15% of time):
Record findings
File appropriately
Note sources
Capture uncertainty
FOLLOW-UP (5% of time):
What questions emerged?
What needs monitoring?
What's incomplete?
RESEARCH NOTE TEMPLATE:
TOPIC: [What question]
DATE: [When researched]
SUMMARY:
[2-3 sentence conclusion]
FINDINGS:
[Key information discovered]
SOURCES:
[Sources used with links]
CONFIDENCE:
[How confident, what's uncertain]
FOLLOW-UP:
[What needs further research]
---
QUICK NOTE TEMPLATE:
DATE: [Date]
TOPIC: [Brief description]
FINDING: [What learned]
SOURCE: [Where from]
ACTION: [If any]
---
KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION:
- Research notes (by topic)
- Meeting/call notes
- Quick notes log
- Question backlog
- Monthly review summary
- Quarterly assessment
- Annual review
- Deep dive reports
- Analysis papers
- Deliverables from this course
- Source database
- Contact list
- Methodology notes
- Templates
RECOMMENDED FILE STRUCTURE:
XRP_Research/
├── 01_Active/
│ ├── Current_Questions/
│ ├── In_Progress/
│ └── Waiting_For/
├── 02_Reference/
│ ├── Sources/
│ ├── Templates/
│ └── Methodology/
├── 03_Research_Notes/
│ ├── By_Topic/
│ └── Chronological/
├── 04_Reviews/
│ ├── Monthly/
│ ├── Quarterly/
│ └── Annual/
├── 05_Data/
│ ├── Dashboard/
│ └── Historical/
└── 06_Archive/
FILE NAMING CONVENTION:
YYYY-MM-DD_Topic_Type.ext
Examples:
2024-01-15_SEC_Ruling_Analysis.md
2024-01-20_ODL_Volume_Data.xlsx
2024-01-31_Monthly_Review.docx
- Sorts chronologically
- Easy to find by time
- Consistent and searchable
---
REVIEW SCHEDULE:
- What did I learn this week?
- What questions emerged?
- What needs follow-up?
- Process working?
- Thesis check
- Data update
- Risk register
- What worked/didn't
- Full thesis review
- Process evaluation
- Skill assessment
- System improvements
- Complete reset
- Multi-year assessment
- Major system updates
IMPROVEMENT CYCLE:
1. OBSERVE
1. ADJUST
1. EVALUATE
1. STANDARDIZE
---
Systems multiply research effectiveness but only if maintained. Start simple, build habits, add complexity only where it adds value. The best system is one you'll actually use. Most people who design elaborate systems abandon them; those who start simple and iterate succeed.
Assignment: Implement your personal XRP research system and document it.
Part 1: Monitoring System Setup
- Configure alert systems
- Create source lists by layer
- Establish daily routine
- Document the setup
Part 2: Research Process Templates
- Research note template
- Quick note template
- Review templates
- Custom as needed
Part 3: Documentation Architecture
- File structure created
- Naming convention documented
- Templates placed
- Archive approach defined
Part 4: Review Cadence
- Weekly routine defined
- Monthly review scheduled
- Quarterly assessment planned
- Calendar reminders set
Part 5: One-Week Implementation
- Follow the process
- Document what worked/didn't
- Note adjustments made
- Reflection on sustainability
Time investment: 4-6 hours
Value: This deliverable builds infrastructure you'll use for all future XRP research.
1. Time Horizons:
You see a major XRP news article during daily monitoring. When should you do deep analysis?
A) Immediately—this might be important
B) Flag for Horizon 2 (weekly analysis) unless it's urgent enough to warrant immediate attention
C) Wait for quarterly review
D) Ignore it—daily monitoring is just for awareness
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: Daily monitoring identifies topics; weekly analysis provides depth. Unless the development requires immediate decision (position change), flag it for proper Horizon 2 analysis rather than reactive deep dive.
2. Monitoring Layers:
Your Layer 3 (community) sources are buzzing about a rumor. What's the appropriate response?
A) Trust the community consensus
B) Elevate to Layer 1 and 2 verification—community buzz is not evidence
C) Ignore community sources entirely
D) Wait to see if price moves
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: Community buzz (Layer 3) indicates something to verify, not something to believe. Check primary sources (Layer 1) and quality secondary (Layer 2) for confirmation before taking any action.
3. Research Process:
What percentage of research time should documentation take?
A) 0%—documentation is busywork
B) 15%—enough to capture findings without excessive overhead
C) 50%—documentation is the most important part
D) It varies too much to say
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: The recommended process allocates ~15% to documentation. Less risks losing insights; more crowds out actual analysis. Documentation should capture enough to be useful without becoming the primary activity.
4. System Design:
You design an elaborate research system with daily 2-hour protocols and complex templates. After two weeks, you've stopped using it. What went wrong?
A) You lack discipline
B) The system was probably over-engineered for sustainability—simplify and rebuild habits gradually
C) Research systems don't work
D) Two weeks isn't enough time
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: Over-engineered systems often fail because they require unsustainable effort. Better to start simple, build habits, and add complexity only where it adds value. Sustainability matters more than comprehensiveness.
5. Review Cadence:
Why is quarterly thesis review important even if nothing seems to have changed?
A) It's not—only review when things change
B) Scheduled review catches gradual drift, ensures assumptions are still valid, and prevents thesis stagnation
C) To generate documentation
D) Professional investors do it
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: Gradual changes accumulate. Scheduled reviews catch drift that daily/weekly monitoring might miss. They also ensure your thesis hasn't become stale through inaction rather than deliberate maintenance.
- Getting Things Done (GTD)
- Personal knowledge management
- Investment research best practices
For Next Lesson:
Lesson 8 begins Phase 2 (Deep Dive Frameworks) with technology due diligence—systematically evaluating XRPL technical capabilities and development trajectory.
End of Lesson 7
Total words: ~5,800
Estimated completion time: 50 minutes reading + 4-6 hours for deliverable
Key Takeaways
Three horizons organize research by timeframe.
Daily monitoring, weekly analysis, quarterly review. Each has different focus and depth.
Layered monitoring filters noise.
Primary sources first, then quality secondary, then community awareness, then contrarian check.
Standard process ensures consistency.
Define, gather, verify, analyze, document, follow-up.
Knowledge management prevents loss.
Organized filing, consistent naming, regular archiving.
Regular review enables improvement.
Weekly, monthly, quarterly cadences. Process evaluation included. ---