Hacker News Reader

While the analogy is correct, a key difference is that startups are illiquid by definition. Founders can't just cash out and are thus incentivized by build something of value. With protocols, there is no incentive to build something of value. Instead, the incentive is to building something that looks valuable on the surface to generate liquidity and cash out at the best point.

View on HN

"What are secondaries?"

Not for super early stage. Crypto projects cash out after a few months or so. That's pre-seed/seed startups.

But you used a binary term "illiquid" rather than opting for something more open like "most illiquid". Just wanted to make a clarificaiton for other readers.

Are you aware that most crypto projects also opt into vesting patterns - and this is an increasing trend overall?

Another thing that might be interesting to you is that in most countries we have close to no public information if founders sell on secondaries. Your C-Suite might have maximized their secondaries in mutliple rounds and you wouldn't even know that incentives have changed.

In Crypto this is fully transparent and there are people bringing these to light on a consistent basis.

Some stuff to think about!

Secondaries are rare until series A or later.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com