How should we give ourselves ??
We are a blockchain startup that just raised 10 million dollars in a crowdsale.
How should we manage our runway?
More specifically, how do we pay ourselves?
Before I go any further, I should say that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. I have been a solopreneur for majority of my productive life, and have limited experience with team work, and absolutely no experience in running companies. Perhaps my fresh, and rather naive view can be useful to re-think the 'standard' way of doing things. Feedback on these ideas is very welcome.
$5,000 a month for everyone
I think everyone should be paid the base salary of $5,000 in notional value. The actual means of payment may vary (Bitcoin, ETH, Fiat, etc), but its underlying value should be calculated and capped to the maximum with each payment.
Why $5,000?
This salary is high enough for comfortable living in most places around the world, but low enough to repel people whom are only interested in the size of the salary, and not the project itself.
Why Everyone?
Yes, everyone should be paid the same. The CEO as well as the junior developer we just hired. By paying everyone the same, we decouple the subjective value of each team member and behind the back politicking (playing favorites, asking for raises, etc...) from the salary.
Voting based Token Bonus events
Every 4 months, there should be an offsite gathering with goals of reviewing past progress, strategy and team bonding.
During each offsite, a certain, pre-determined quantity of token is to be distributed as a bonus. This token is the native blockchain token of the project that the team is working on.
The bonus is paid in tokens, so that every team member is incentivized to do the best work they can, for the benefit of the project, which benefits the team and individuals alike (virtuous cycle).
Voting based distribution
Every member gets an equal portion of voting shares. Every member can use their shares in arbitrary amounts to vote on other people in the organization. Typically, people will use their shares on people they work most closely with, in a subjective manner.
This system is imperfect, in a sense that it does not distinguish types of value from individual perspective - for example, someone might put more weight on how nice someone is to work with, over what they brought to the table in terms of innovation and code.
In the bigger picture view however, a consensus forms - based on combined opinions and views of the world from all individuals.
The premise is that this system could be more efficient and fair over an arbitrary, and often skewed bonuses tallied by people on the 'top'.
As a side note, the voting should be done with perfect information (who voted, how much, and for whom - should be available in real-time), and everyone can change their votes until the deadline. Participation should be voluntary.
Also, a weird anomaly in individual vote sums, particularly in regards to people in executive positions should trigger a performance review.
Fire fast, and pay well to leave
It is possible to hire talented, good people who just aren't a fit. We should be very vigilant in weeding out people with negative long term impact on team morale and culture.
New hires should be on a two month probation period, and should be excluded from participation in the first token bonus event.
On Firing
Fire fast, and pay people fairly when they leave. Its not their fault that it just didn't work out - remember both parties had limited information at the time of a hire.
Edit: As you may have noticed, there is no mention of founder shares or vesting. That's because there are none. Founders should not be entitled to a stake just because they started something - they should earn their place trough contributions and leadership.
That sounds like Communism to me...lol. Followed.
"I'm personally motivated to do this because the immoral banksters own the pharma companies and the research dollars involved in cancer research. Cures are known. Causes are known. We can end the cancer epidemic tomorrow if leaders stopped promoting cancer studies akin to tobacco science and talk extensively about the Race to the Cause instead of the Race to the Cure. It would be great if they start promoting actual cures instead of high priced medicines that cause further harm.
I'm a PhD scientist, I've done extensive research. I know about the mainstream studies. I've read them. I don't believe them anymore. They're lying and the research is fraudulent, and now I have a dead mother, two dead uncles, and a variety of family members missing their organs and a fat chunk of change because of it. Eventually, I'll probably die from cancer too. I have limited time to fix this place so my kids might have it better. I want this whole system to change, and I think Steemit could do it.
That's where I'm coming from."
Over 100 studies now confirm orally administered THC kills cancer cells.
Why is this not discussed in medical schools?
Congratulations @alaaabujabal! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!