> I recently told the CEO of a recruiting agency about this compensation model. She told me that if you even mention crypto, more than half your engineering candidates will immediately say “no” to your company.

For good reason. Also, their 'sister article' about the details of the token are a private google doc. Quite promising.

"Half" seems like a significant underestimation.

I'm the person OOP is quoting in the article. It's an estimate based on two observations:

- 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.

The rates are believable, but this seems somewhat different from what the thread is about - compensation in tokens rather than equity. I suspect many an engineer who's OK with crypto work in general will balk at this arrangement.

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.

That might very well be true! But I didn't have hard numbers on that, and I did have hard numbers on crypto-industry-openness.

Is equity in crypto any better than the crypto?

I've been invited to be a founding engineer a few times now, and crypto backed things are an instant no.

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.

Apologies, just made it public: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvxEQBRexuFJT5qCr9MCeZRV...

Hey! The doc you linked allows anon edits. You should make it read only :)

Maybe they were hoping someone would complete their "TODO: finish" ;)

People in my neighborhood have "invested" and it's almost like they told me "hey so I have started doing crack lately." It just filled me with grief.

> This is a utility token that will be deployed under the ERC-20 standard, and live on the Ethereum blockchain. It will be set up so that if the product does well, the price of the token goes up, and if the product does badly, the price of the token goes down. You can read more about the details of the token in a sister article. [0]

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...

Plenty wrong with tokens but I would remember that VC funding also comes with a lot of drawbacks and, in my opinion, is what is holding technical progress back. I am in a startup and VCs are preventing us from focusing on longer term goals like interoperable protocols. The VC game is simple - fund a "disrupting" company aka an extractive monopoly and cash out. In that light, even though we took VC funding some sort of cautious yet fair token raise would have made sense, it'd allow us to work out the product without compromising on longer term goals.

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.

> Is experimentation good? Yes.

This isn’t experimentation, it’s re-running a scam. Experimentation means trying something new.

A token is just a token, who uses it how and why is not intrinsic in the token itself. Stocks and bonds have been tokenized, why are those not scam? There are lots of tokens representing different things, economic models and with very different histories following their creation.

Ah that's very easy question. Stocks and bonds have very heavy legal framework you can lean on in many situations. It doesn't mean you can't lose - stock investors lose they money all the time - but at least some scenarios are covered. With token nothing is covered, it's basically a naked bet on issuers and their ability to deliver. I don't say never bet - adults can decide for themselves - but if you bet, do it with open eyes.

> The VC game is simple

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.

That is the moment I completely lost interest in the article.

Hey guys, CEO of FetchFox here. Happy to answer any questions about the crypto token. I'm also making the draft doc public, please be aware the details are still being worked out, but we will publish the full plans on our site within weeks.

Draft doc with comments enabled: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvxEQBRexuFJT5qCr9MCeZRV...

I have some fairly basic questions:

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)

My thoughts exactly

LOL