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.