increasingly believe that the right time to launch a token is at the start of the project, not the end

design @splits | /wireframe /latenightcrew /event-pass /feud

it can be a marketing/growth engine and gives you a way to reward early contributors

also, launching it later on signals “this is the end, they’re cashing out”

i used to think token = ipo, think now it’s more like token = cap table

In a case where builder doesn't have the social capital of prominent dev on here.

Is this still an ideal part you would advice

at the very early stage, “a bet on the founding team” is the reason to buy the token and hold it IMO.

of course there are ups and downs, but every company should be focused on growing, especially startups.

but is the expectation on same lines? people’s expectations from a token is more akin to an ipo or a company that has figured it out all and should now focus on growing shareholder value Quarter on Quarter as opposed to being a pre PMF startup with token as a bet on the founding team

The fundamental problem to solve for with personal tokens / creator coins / etc. is the psychological effect of a significant price decline.

1. Most people are not equipped to manage a liquid, global, 24/7 traded asset.

2. Current norms are that if someone buys an asset, they expect the person / team / organization behind that asset are incentivized long-term to make that asset more valuable.

3. When there's a significant price decline, many / most creators will be overwhelmed by the hole they now need to dig themselves out of. Layer on a bunch of angry, pseudonymous people screaming at them on the internet.

4. Additionally, what happens when you want to stop creating? Like Outdoor Boys recently did. Contrast to a publicly traded company where the founder retires—the value still continues to accrue.

Possible ways to change this

1. Invent a new asset that's time bound. Closer to a prediction market or an option. "I'm speculating on X during period Y."

2. Change norms / culture -- this is super slow.

this feels like precisely the problem. It's a cap table that you immediately surrender control of. Dan makes good points here about personal tokens but I think it applies to projects as well.

building @scratchapp and  sidequest.build

yeah. am all for changing that norm. my general take is that launching a token for a project is basically an IPO in practice but w/ far more chaos potential. the best ones have a clear sense of what the product is and how it could make money (noice/clanker both had this). tokens can just as easily destroy a project.

i think there are ways each of those points can solve or evolve.

i also don’t think tokens necessarily need to be liquid / tradable from day one either. you don’t have to surrender control of the entire cap table, just happens to be the norm today.

this feels like precisely the problem. It's a cap table that you immediately surrender control of. Dan makes good points here about personal tokens but I think it applies to projects as well. https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0xf0859727

You can structure it whatever way you want - even got more flexibility with a token.

Obv stakeholders are different, have different expectations and require different management.

https://farcaster.xyz/juli/0x600edcbf

i agree with you, and it’s also not comparable to an IPO. i was just painting an analogy.

Your seed investors in a normal startup can’t sell their equity instantly. It’s not comparable.