> We do not offer stock or options or equity in the traditional sense. Instead, we offer a crypto token.
Found the catch.
Found the catch.
For good reason. Also, their 'sister article' about the details of the token are a private google doc. Quite promising.
- 23% of candidates tell us outright that they don't want us to match them with crypto (see chart here: https://bsky.app/profile/otherbranch.bsky.social/post/3l4wod... )
- About 36% of candidates who didn't, that we end up reaching out to about a crypto role, decline it explicitly because it's crypto.
So: 23%, plus 36% of the remaining 77%, equals just north of 50%. Add in a few who don't turn it down outright but who end up withdrawing later, and you get a bit north of half.
EDIT: I reread the original comment. It technically makes sense, but still I think answers a different question than the one posed about the compensation model.
How would this hold up in court? Let's say things go south and the founders drop everything and take what funds there are with them. Can I go to court and say "Hey, I have a crypto token for...". Before I even finish the sentence, I'd get laughed out of the room.
There's more ways it can go wrong than it can go right, and that's saying something when it comes to startups to begin with.
Either its a fixed percentage, on paper, with clear, legally defined terms, or it's effectively worthless.
Funny enough, that "sister article" appears to be a private google docs link... I was curious how this would even work.
At time of this comment, [0] https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1VvxEQBRexuFJT5qCr9MC...
I understand the distrust for blockchain but there is also ideology in blockchain world that has not yet occurred in the greater world, that funding is broken and new alternatives are needed. Has somebody figured a perfect one - no. Is experimentation good? Yes.
This isn’t experimentation, it’s re-running a scam. Experimentation means trying something new.
Good article on some of the less simple incentives of VC: https://pivotal.substack.com/p/making-markets-in-time -- however forewarning that the compelling parts are mixed in with a lot of waffle.
Personally all levels of VC seem like a grift to me.
Draft doc with comments enabled: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvxEQBRexuFJT5qCr9MCeZRV...
1. What happens if an employee loses access to the wallet their company-ownership-tokens are on? Is it just a matter of re-emitting new tokens and distributing it to them? How are the old tokens handled (e.g. if the wallet is found at a later point in time)?
2. Could you ELI5 how you correlate the company value with token value?
3. Presumably, if everything works out, this allows your team (as well as anyone else) to sell their ownership tokens at any point, but also buy others' tokens that are available on the market as well right? I can see a few issues with this including insider dealing (some people having earlier access to great/awful news before others and making token transactions based on that).
I think it's an interesting idea but I think there are a lot more details that I'd like to see ironed out based on the little that's in the doc (that also has public-write access on it for some reason)