Founders

1/ We're seeing more and more crypto startups stuck with predatory terms from early-stage deals. 

Don't let early-stage investors set you up for long-term failure and jeopardize future fundraising rounds. 

Here's what you should look out for:

Trying to solve more problems than I cause @a16zcrypto

https://linktr.ee/milesjennings

All but one of these are based around deals involving tokens. Seems like the correct route is for founders to not entertain token-oriented deals at all. Hopefully crypto VCs that want to rise above the problem will do the same.

Not quite the right conclusion. Its an incentive alignment problem, and it's a solvable one:

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

In equity deals, investors are stakeholders in the company: the desire is to increase the value of the company. In token deals, investors are stakeholders in the token itself: the desire is to increase the value of the token. To do so means investors and project builders are directly making an agreement for an investment of money for the token, in a common enterprise, with the expectation of profit, on the efforts of others. If a token is intended to be a security, then by all means be a security, but if a token is intended to be a utility it appears entering these kinds of agreements serve entirely against the best interest of building a protocol insofar as the value of the protocol is the primary interest rather than its utility.

From the perspective of building a company that is building a protocol with a utility token it seems the correct approach is to avoid the issue such an investment contract creates by instead only taking equity deals, and letting tokens be tokens solely earned through the protocol.