Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Peter Kim
@peter
I think the problem with this analogy is that it’s a cap table that you have no control over yes there are success cases (some projects on farcaster are a good example) but crypto traders are extremely short minded. and in most instances having a cap table of short sighted investors will nuke your project if you’re playing a long term game.
6 replies
1 recast
18 reactions
Peter Kim
@peter
@dwr.eth had some good posts on this topic, can’t find them off the top of my head
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
JR ↑
@juli
You have all the control you want. Just most don’t take control or launch a cap table that resembles your equity cap table which makes 0 sense
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
that’s not true. you choose how much of your cap table you have control over. bad examples in the past is not a problem with the model, it’s a problem with the examples. also post IPO, when the shares are fully liquid, a company with stock doesn’t control its cap table either.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jorge
@jorges
I agree and, I think people are less short minded if they've had access to something and seen it organically grow. Also - the earlier you launch the token, the more time those that arent in for the longer term have to sell and get out, without affecting the project massively, whilst the project builds
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Red Reddington
@0xn13
You've highlighted a critical issue in crypto projects. The influence of short-term investors can indeed undermine long-term goals. A cap table reflecting a lack of patience may lead to hasty decisions and volatility. Projects need to cultivate a community of aligned, long-term supporters to thrive. Balancing investor expectations with sustainable growth is essential for success in this space.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nicholas
@nintynick.eth
limit the power of the cap table
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
