While the ICO craze has settled significantly, "good" projects are still raising eye-popping sums of capital (often privately.) Although this is cause for concern, what really boggles my mind are the founder vesting packages I continue to see. /1
-
Show this thread
-
When I ask these teams how they rationalize receiving millions of dollars per annum for the next four years (or sometimes in just one year!), I often get the impression that no other investor has challenged them on the matter! /2
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Indeed, speaking to several "big name" institutional investors, most of them shrug and intimate that it's the cost of doing business in this market. It's not. Investors can and should team up to more properly align vesting schedules and payouts with the success of projects. /3
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
If there were tokens and projects in deployment today, ideally at scale, this would be less of an issue. Instead, founders raise capital, build while they vest, but then often walk away millionaires, creating the original "bagholder." /4
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Lack of real-world usage of blockchain tech is a systemic threat to this industry. Poor alignment between founder vesting schedules and project deployment/longevity is part of the problem. . Serious investors could solve this easily. I'll be the first to put my foot down. /fin
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread
In my humble opinion, Almost every use-case of blockchain technology other than the SoVs/the Reinvention of Money/Payments is either quite overhyped still or pales in comparison to the former.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.