[rachofsunshine]

I'm the person OOP is quoting in the article. It's an estimate based on two observations:

- 23% of candidates tell us outright that they don't want us to match them with crypto (see chart here: https://bsky.app/profile/otherbranch.bsky.social/post/3l4wod... )

- About 36% of candidates who didn't, that we end up reaching out to about a crypto role, decline it explicitly because it's crypto.

So: 23%, plus 36% of the remaining 77%, equals just north of 50%. Add in a few who don't turn it down outright but who end up withdrawing later, and you get a bit north of half.

[LinuxAmbulance]

I've been invited to be a founding engineer a few times now, and crypto backed things are an instant no.

How would this hold up in court? Let's say things go south and the founders drop everything and take what funds there are with them. Can I go to court and say "Hey, I have a crypto token for...". Before I even finish the sentence, I'd get laughed out of the room.

There's more ways it can go wrong than it can go right, and that's saying something when it comes to startups to begin with.

Either its a fixed percentage, on paper, with clear, legally defined terms, or it's effectively worthless.

[romanhn]

The rates are believable, but this seems somewhat different from what the thread is about - compensation in tokens rather than equity. I suspect many an engineer who's OK with crypto work in general will balk at this arrangement.

EDIT: I reread the original comment. It technically makes sense, but still I think answers a different question than the one posed about the compensation model.

[rachofsunshine]

That might very well be true! But I didn't have hard numbers on that, and I did have hard numbers on crypto-industry-openness.

[enknamel]

Is equity in crypto any better than the crypto?