A joy to read.
Is Regression to the Code just a crypto thing? Looks like a form of kinda Innovation Reach Maximization/malism: give privilege to the code so as to test the limits of the tech artifact most of all. Which is in all of tech.
Less a pb w/ view of crypto as an experimental space where testing counts most

Building better ways to earn onchain w/ @vaultsfyi |

More: 
https://linktr.ee/ryanrodenbaugh

My point is that value can theoretically be accrued by making the token more valuable. If they need to employ people, founders might need to sell, thus pressure the token down, that’s true. But yet, is this enough to produce equity/token misalignment?
I’d love to discuss this more. Will you be in Istanbul in 3w?

I’m consciously equating team and company alloc. If team wants to make company, members use their own tokens. But ideally the company exists at inception
I’m only thinking about initial alloc here, no “over time” (apart from vesting if exists)

Great analysis.
But why is accruing protocol tokens not a valid business model, supposing these tokens are made valuable by protocol and there is an allocation mechanism to the labs entity?
Misalignment between token maximization and equity maximization looks fixable

cofounder Butter <*> futarchy
-- Bitcoin is the devil's way of teaching geeks economics - Revalin

lajarre 🧈

@lajarre