Startups and independent developers are increasingly competing from a disadvantaged position: Networks (computing networks, developer platforms, marketplaces, social networks, etc.) tend to only become useful when they reach a critical mass of users -- but the control (and returns) remain in the hands of a centralized, closed few. By enabling the development of new, more open networks, crypto tokens could help reverse the centralization of the internet and lead to greater innovation. A lot of attention has been paid to token pre-sales (so-called “ICOs”), but they're just one of many ways the token model incents and aligns all network participants -- including users, developers, service providers, and investors -- to work together toward a common goal.
read this article

For as long as people have been creating technology, others have been saying it'll never amount to anything. The problem with the typical lines of argument is that they have no predictive value: It is unquestionably true that many of the most important technology advances looked like toys at first; but it's also unquestionably true that there were lots of things that "looked like toys" and never became anything more. So how do we tell? We should try to do better...
read this post

One of the most common mistakes made by technical founders (including us!) is assuming they can run a function themselves with only junior reports -- and thus hire key executives too late. Take this journey, for example (for sales): day #1 (I can learn it myself); day 330 (Looking great!); day #90 (Got a pipeline, but can’t tell what will close when); day #180 (Can’t tell who to hire, what tools to use); day #270 (My reps aren’t working out, going to try yet another offsite); day #365 (holy shit, just get me out of this mess so I can go back to building product!). It's not only about thinking you can do the job yourself, though -- it's knowing what the job is, what to hire for, and why... what can these roles really do for you not just operationally, but strategically?  

• Head of sales
• CMO
• VP of Engineering
• CFO

What do you do when you start getting that pit in your stomach that the senior executive you hired isn't delivering on their promise? You fire them. To be provocative: No one ever fired someone too soon. This is a seasoned refrain I hear a lot amongst experienced founders and CEOs, but many newer CEOs still want to give "just one more" minute/ hour/ month/ quarter/year. But that's a luxury no one can afford. Think of it as the “net present value of success” or NPV for outcomes on talent: the longer you leave firing, the lower the score will be. So how long should you give people a chance, and do you know your own psychology about it?
read this article

For a lot of people, a big part of what gives work meaning is personal growth. That’s one of many reasons why feedback matters. But doesn’t such feedback take too much time, especially when you’re busy building things or your company is so focused on survival? Also, does feedback affect women, under-represented minorities, millennials, or different types of roles differently? Given all the conflicting management wisdom out there, what's the best way to give feedback so that you’re not being "obnoxiously aggressive", or even worse, "ruinously empathetic"? You actually don’t have to choose between those two things, because the answer lies somewhere in between: with "radical candor".
Listen to this podcast