Published in


OrcaPod Episode 6: Lessons for a Fair Fundraise feat. Chris Burniske

Listen now on Spotify, YouTube, or Simplecast!

In our 6th episode, our co-founder Ori (@oritheorca) welcomes Placeholder Partner Chris Burniske (@cburniske) onto the show to talk about what they’ve each learned about how to structure a fair, human-centered fundraise.

In the process, they discuss each of the tips in Ori’s popular Twitter thread: Top 4 pieces of advice I received during our fundraise. If you’ve ever thought about fundraising—on either side of the equation—this is an episode you won’t want to miss!

Ori (00:10):

Hey pod mates. This is Ori, co-founder of Orca, the most user-friendly dex on Solana. And welcome to this episode of OrcaPod, a deep dive into DeF i from the builder’s perspective. This episode, I’m honored to welcome Chris Burniske, co-founder and partner of Placeholder. Placeholder is one of the most well-respected venture capital funds in crypto and also a co-lead for Orca Series A. Chris, welcome to the show.

Chris (00:36):

Hi Ori. Thanks for having me.

Ori (00:37):

Such a pleasure. Honestly, I think this is a really special episode for us because of how long we’ve really respected Placeholder, even when we were just starting out with Orca. I remember Yutaro and I talking about how Placeholder has a really unique approach to creating fair crypto networks. And our token economics, which we talked about all the way back in episode three of OrcaPod, were really inspired by that thoughtful approach to capital distribution that you talked about in the original sin. So today I thought we could have a little conversation about what we’ve both learned along the way about how to structure fundraisers such that they’re productive for both the community and the team involved. How’s that sound?

Chris (01:22):

That sounds great.

Ori (01:22):

Awesome. Well, let’s get to it. First of all, I actually thought it would be really fun to share the story of how you actually became a crypto VC, which I had the honor of learning about just this year. Care to fill in our listeners?

Chris (01:35):

Sure. It’s a pretty random walk as life can often be. I was classically trained as a scientist so biochem, physics around the ocean in university. At the tail end of my time in college, I met a woman by the name of Cathie Wood who was getting a startup off the ground called ARK Invest, and Cathie offered me a position as a big data researcher because I was … I had some focus on that while I was in college. I actually turned her down. I didn’t want to work in finance, I didn’t want to move to New York City, I didn’t want to be in front of a screen all day long which would all become things that I would do in a few years time, but at the time I didn’t want to do it.

And went and bounced around for about a year before I saw Cathie on TV. And she was talking about interesting things. At that point, ARK was just getting off the ground. They didn’t have funds live yet but they were producing research. And so I reached out to her and said, “Hey, do you still have any open positions?” And she said, “Yeah, come out.” So I joined ARK, and pretty quickly in my time at ARK I started to cover crypto for the firm. And I had just fooled around with crypto in college, nothing serious. And it didn’t really dawn on me in 2012 and 2013 how grand the idea was at least of Bitcoin, there were applications that I was more enamored by, but really started paying deep attention in late 2014 into 2015.

And then ARK became the first public fund manager to add Bitcoin to its funds and then Bitcoin doubled. And this was just a case of being right place, right time. And all of this culminated in me meeting Joel and getting to … Joel Monegro, my co-founder at Placeholder, and getting to know the Union Square Ventures team. And then Joel and I started talking about doing our own fund, and we had the support of Union Square Ventures and ARK Invest. And so in 2017, we raised a pure crypto-focused firm off the ground. And now Placeholder is four years old and well into its life.

Ori (04:13):

You’ve really been on quite the journey since those four years ago, haven’t you?

Chris (04:17):


Ori (04:19):

I think I can speak for many of your portfolio companies when I say that we’re all really grateful that you went on that random walk because Placeholder brings such a unique perspective. And in particular, I also thought it would be fun to talk about how you actually came to be an investor in Orca.

Chris (04:36):

Definitely. So I first met your co-founder Yutaro through UMA, which Placeholder is also an investor in, and we’re having a dinner in New York City. I guess I was the only investor there and it was the whole UMA team, and we had hotpot, and it was just a blast. And got to know Yutaro a little bit then. And then I knew that Yutaro had been at the Ethereum Foundation and then was at UMA. And then fast forward a couple of years, you all spoke with me, I think it was 2020, about Wallaroo, the high yield experiment you guys were running on Solana and you-

Ori (05:27):

It was actually Ethereum back then.

Chris (05:29):

Oh, it was Ethereum.

Ori (05:32):

It was Ethereum.

Chris (05:33):

Okay. So we talked through the Wallaroo idea, agreed to stay in touch, and then at some point, you guys shifted to Solana, and then Orca started to become an idea. And I remember we kept talking. You both made compelling cases for Solana and got me to start taking Solana more seriously. And then at the same time, I think my encouragement was to wait to raise capital and to get as far down the path as you could, and ideally launch a token and get a market price before you were going to raise capital because then you’d probably get the most advantageous price. At least that’s as I recall it. If you recall it differently I’m very curious to hear. And then low and behold in 2021, you guys did just that, and we’d been talking throughout and so it was pretty seamless to pick up that dialogue about potentially getting Placeholder involved.

Ori (06:42):

We’ve definitely taken a lot of your advice to heart, as I think the listeners will hear about when we discuss some of the particular advice that I share later on. But I really love the part of your story of how it starts with a hotpot dinner because actually, I think something that’s pretty unique about our pitch process is that, especially in the time of COVID and especially for crypto, it’s very normal for the whole pitch process to be very remote, right. But we actually did have the very unique opportunity to meet you in person during our pitch process.

Chris (07:13):

That’s right. We met in person. We happened to be in the same place at the same time, and we had a informal but depthful conversation as I recall it. I think sometimes entrepreneurs think oh, I need this deck and I need to be able to fill 60 minutes, and sometimes they end up talking at the investors the whole time. But really you want engaged investors that are asking questions that understand the product, and that can only show up in a back and forth conversation, and I think we had that all throughout our conversations. And then the quote-unquote pitch was really just a conversation about the most important parts of Orca.

Ori (08:06):

That’s really the most enjoyable type of pitch too, at least having been through the process. Once you’ve given the same pitch back to back so many times, ultimately a conversation is much more refreshing than going through the same slides. I think it actually speaks to the two-way nature of the pitch, right. Sometimes it feels like a one-way interview, but actually, it is two ways. And the investors who have clearly taken the time to actually read your deck and come with intellectual questions really stand out.

Chris (08:36):

Right. Definitely. I can only imagine the repetition. The mind numbingness of the repetition that you have to go through. We go through it occasionally when we have to raise as well so I can empathize.

Ori (08:51):

That’s true. I guess it’s a little bit of inception there. Everyone’s raising at the end of the day.

Chris (08:56):

Everyone has to raise capital from somewhere.

Ori (08:58):

I think that’s a topic for another day. Maybe we’ll do a follow-up podcast where we go into your raising process because I’d actually be very curious. But for today, I was actually hoping to ask you a little bit about, from your perspective, how Placeholder’s approach differs from others in the crypto space.

Chris (09:16):

Well, I’d say we’re laser-focused on using this technology to better distribute data, wealth, and power. And so if a implementation we feel is potentially centralizing or grabbing too much wealth for insiders or too much power for insiders, even if we recognize that it’s likely to be a moneymaker, it’s not fulfilling our thesis mandate, and why we exist, and why we invest, and so everything gets passed through this lens of better distributing data, wealth, and power for the world. And we think it’s possible to do that and to be really good investors.

And then within that thesis focus, run a very human-centric practice so I think as you and Yutaro have experienced. Where Joel and I have been full-time in crypto now for seven years, we understand how grueling it is. It’s 24/7, 365, one of the core community members or founders or leaders of a crypto network, that network, that community can be very demanding sometimes, and talking through the personal issues or the team issues that arise is really important. We want to be there as the investor that teams feel comfortable going to when shit’s hitting the fan, not the investor that they feel they need to hide the gory details from. And so that’s part of the human-centric practice.

And then I know part of the focus of this podcast is also the fair fundraise and the fair distribution. And so for us, our goal when we’re helping get a network off the ground is for the insiders so the early team, early advisors, early investors, everyone that’s involved at a permission stage, for those folks to get 20 to 33% of a network’s fully diluted allocation. And so that saves … At 20% it means that the permissionless public can get 4X what people at the insider’s stage got. And at 33% it means the permissionless public can get 2X, 66% what the insiders got at 33%.

And then, even within that insider allocation, the goal is for the team to get more than the investors. So one and a half to 2X what investors get because the builders are the special sauce. They are the ones that code everything. And yes, I think of investors as the bench. The core team is the starting team and they’re there when the whistle blows. And then investors come in occasionally and have specific skill sets, but they’re not the core. And so making sure that the core gets more than investors, which in some cases doesn’t happen and I think that’s crazy. And so those are the wealth structure dynamics that we look for within crypto networks.

Ori (12:44):

It’s really interesting that you talk about how the builders should ultimately get more because they’re the ones doing the work, which I think in most cases would logically make sense. But actually, after talking to a lot of different projects, I’ve heard more and more about cases in which projects actually … Or investors rather, actually are on the ground there with projects essentially doing the building which isn’t something that we experienced since we did follow your advice and essentially didn’t raise until we were past seed stage. I’m interested in what you think of that trend where people will almost outsource their entire, for example, marketing divisions or PR divisions to these investors.

Chris (13:24):

Well, I think it depends on what’s being done, and it also depends on the structure of the investment firm. But by and large, most investment firms need to return their capital at some point in time and will be a finite duration. Whereas good crypto networks that are composed predominantly of middle machines that automate critical digital services, those are multidecadal mechanisms. And so if they’re reliant on a finite termed investor, then it might be a finite termed crypto network, and we want to help build infinite termed crypto networks. At the same time, it’s great that investors are helping more. And I think that there is pressure within crypto for investors to really showcase what they can bring to a crypto network to compete with other investors to provide differentiated services. And in some ways, ICOs, even though they more or less got outlawed by the SEC, but as we open up the private stage of markets closer and closer to the public, there’s more competition, and so that makes the private investors either a venture structure or hedge fund structure in crypto behave better, contribute more.

And I think that DAO ‘s are only going to further this trend. And what’s cool about a DAO is a DAO can also be in finite termed. And so it might be more native to have these crypto Dow investment teams that are composed of a circulating roster of talent. People come, people go contributing different amounts of capital, and to attach themselves to different crypto networks, and then help those networks grow and sustain over time. But whatever a team needs … I think if they can find investors that compliment where they feel weak or just not as robust, that’s great.

Ori (15:41):

The finite point that you’re making is one that really resonates I think and makes sense as we think about decentralization on a certain timeline as well. I think we ultimately are … Have to think about building protocols in a very different way from building traditional companies. And so I really like what you’re saying about a human-centered approach to fundraising where you’re actually sort of empowering the founders to set the protocol on the right path to decentralization. I especially love it because we talk about human-centeredness all the time, but this is a completely different definition of it.

Chris (16:17):

And eventually, the founders and the core team have to be able to take their hands off the wheel. Everyone more or less has to be able to take their hands off the wheel and know that there’s going to people coming and going helping to maintain what has been built.

Ori (16:36):

It’s going to be a journey to get there. I think it’s really unproven but it’s one that, at least for Solana now, I’m becoming more and more let’s say optimistic about just seeing how the community is starting to rally. And so that’s actually something I wanted to circle back on that you mentioned a little bit earlier, but correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Orca is Placeholder’s first major investment in a Solana protocol. And I know that the firm’s views have sort of changed on that over time so I’m curious to dive into that a little bit.

Chris (17:08):

Well, I remember in 2017, Joel and I had an afternoon where our minds were blown looking at the Solana white paper, and we were excited that a team of Qualcomm engineers was building this. And if I could go back and do it all over again, I might’ve pursued Solana at that time, but we were busy getting Placeholder just off the ground at that point in time and it was really a curiosity and a fascination. And then I’ve gotten to know Raj, and Anatoly, and a few other members of the Solana team. I think that it’s good tech, and there’s no doubt that core set of engineers is very talented. They pursue meaningfully different trade-offs from most any other Layer-1 smart contract platforms. Most famously they’re not pursuing charting, right, it’s the antithesis to how a lot of other Layer-1 smart contract platforms are aiming to scale.

We’re going to have to see what happens when Solana hits 30,000 TPS, and what the costs are. And when Solana gets there, I think that there’s enough talent to figure it out. One of the things that has kept us out as an investor is the insider allocation of SOL is heavier than we’re really comfortable with. That’s in part due to I think the disposition of some of their earliest investors. I think it’s also in part, they had to build through a bear market. There wasn’t a lot of enthusiasm at the time. Lower enthusiasm means lower valuation, which means higher dilution or allocation going to investors. And so I don’t think it’s the evil of the Solana core team that things ended up this way.

A lot of human history is just path-dependent. And I think that over time you can still have big flushes of those insider allocations to better distribute the crypto asset. And just to argue against myself for a second. One really good thing that happened with SOL is it was on the public market around a dollar for a while. At least six months if not longer. And that let different people who could find a way to get access on those public markets, which wasn’t super easy, but there were ways that let more people build positions at a low-cost basis. And then there’s certainly a loyalty that comes through writing an asset for a 100X or more. And so I think that even if the insider allocation is a little heavier than is ideal, it’s a very different setup from, for example, DeFinity, which launched at extremely high valuation and then has traded down pretty precipitously. Whereas Solana launched in the public markets at a very low valuation, gave that public asset, and then has risen.

Ori (20:23):

I’m laughing a little bit because just literally earlier today I was talking to Yutaro about potentially doing a little segment or something where we give a bit of a crypto history lesson on DeFinity and the things to learn from-

Chris (20:35):

Oh boy.

Ori (20:35):

From that. Maybe not something we have time to get into today.

Chris (20:39):

Well, and verdict’s still out. It’s not like DeFinity’s bad tech either. They’ve made some marketing mistakes, and I think that a lot of crypto culture does not want to see DeFinity succeed, but it is also a formidable team that has built powerful tech.

Ori (20:56):

Absolutely. The theme that we were actually thinking of is how sometimes you can do everything right and things won’t go your way, and so you can do your best to learn from the past. But in the case of crypto that the past is so short. Speaking of learning from history, I think this is actually a good time to chat about a topic that we’ve chatted a little bit about before but never in this sort of public forum, which is some of these learnings from the fundraise process. So I actually wrote a little tweet thread a couple of months ago about this, and some of these learnings came directly from that exact human-centered approach of working with you and a few other investors that we felt like we really trusted as humans. And so I thought maybe we could just go through them one by one and chat about them. And I’d love to actually hear places that you disagree as well. How’s that sound?

Chris (21:50):

Let’s do it.

Ori (21:51):

Alrighty. The way I actually titled this was, the top four pieces of advice I received during our fundraise. And so these pieces of advice actually largely did come from folks who ended up investing in our round. And the first one is, to decide on the structure of your round and stick to it. Because once you start getting attention, funds will often bully you to change the structure that you’re looking for to suit their needs but you should remember that the ball is in your court.

Chris (22:16):

So I think the most important thing from this one is remember the ball is in your court because it really is. The builders are the special sauce. And though investors have more iterations, more turns of the wheel in fundraises, and so they can develop more tactics to outmaneuver the builders, the builders can always rely on the fact that they control the special sauce. I remember, in your guys’ process, you were getting some pressure to meaningfully decrease the valuation in a way that was unfair at least compared to market, compared to where your public asset was trading, and we talked about it and you guys stuck to your guns and ultimately, raised at that amount and even higher, which is better for your network, better for all of your stakeholder participants so I definitely agree with remembering the ball is in your court.

The only one that’s a little tricky here is deciding of … On the structure and sticking to it. The only reason I say that is sometimes because investors have a number of rounds or iterations on these fundraises, they can help sometimes say, “Hey, here is a downside of this structure. You might want to consider this other structure or this other jurisdiction.” And so if an investor is able to present more information or more context on the legality or jurisdiction that might change your structure, even if the valuation and everything is where you want it, sometimes it can be good to be flexible to that should the rationale be presented for why it’s in your best interest.

Ori (24:10):

That’s a great point. And actually, maybe structure isn’t the right word here. Perhaps what would’ve been more accurate is the spirit of the round. That spirit is something like the fairness to the community.

Chris (24:21):


Ori (24:21):

But structure I think is more of this legal word.

Chris (24:25):

Yes. I see structure and I’m just used to the legality of deals and I just go, “Okay, what’s the legal structure.”

Ori (24:31):

Right. That makes sense which is not what I wanted to highlight. So for anyone listening to this, let me … In my mind, edit this tweet, although tweets are not editable.

Chris (24:42):

This is the fascinating thing with words and communication. You put out something and people interpret it differently than you intended it. Same with art.

Ori (24:50):

That’s the beauty of it though, right. I won’t go down this rabbit hole because I love being a word nerd, obviously. It’s one of … I just love making puns on the Orca Twitter. Some people like it and some people don’t.

Chris (25:02):

Word nerd is good. I like that one.

Ori (25:04):

We’re very aligned there. But at the risk of going further down the rabbit hole, maybe I’ll bring us to tweet number two, which is actually quite related to tweet number one, and some of the learnings you just shared, which is that the first commit is the hardest. And at first, it might feel like no one wants in, especially at the price that you’ve raised or that you’ve proposed raising at, and discouraging really doesn’t begin to cover it in terms of how it feels to be a founder at that point. But this is actually advice I got from a number of people. As soon as you really get that first commit, that that first ally, everything can really change in an instant.

Chris (25:43):

And I think that especially if the ally has strong brand recognition there’s … I’d say there’s a relatively limited number of firms and this goes beyond crypto. This is just venture, in general, that do lead work and research to be in a position to develop their own conviction or to put together the structure. And the majority of firms really follow. And it’s more network-based and connections-based, and it’s hey, you’re the lead, can you get me into this round? And so if you have a high brand recognition firm that becomes your first partner, the … From there the entire round can just fall together and you can go one day from being like is this going to happen to a few days later being 3X oversubscribed? Just because so much adventure can be a following affair. I mean, so much of human life, whether we want to believe it or not, people are predominantly followers. And so I definitely agree with this advice of focus on getting a few really good investors over the line or just one and then that can make your entire round.

Ori (27:02):

I totally agree. And I … Especially given what we went through, emphasize getting a … I’m trying to search for the right word here, but maybe a spiritually aligned investor. Leading into that word spirit here. Again, because like we talked about in the first tweet, that’s sort of human backing that they can provide, that emotional support, and also that advice that that first partner can provide is going to be really, really influential and powerful. And it might end up pushing your entire raise in a very different direction depending on who that first commit is I think. Easier said than done perhaps, but there is even a small tactical thing here of really scheduling in the correct order to try to make sure that things fall into the right place. Calendly is your friend and sending out Calendlys that have the availabilities that you want may more tactically important than you might believe. But moving on to number three. Fundraising is building a team. It’s not just collecting checks. Each investor plays a unique role. You want a warrior, a mage, and a healer, not three of one class.

Chris (28:09):

And so we were talking about this a little bit earlier I think where I described investors as being on your bench and not necessarily the starting team. And this speaks to that exactly of you want different skill sets on your bench and not all investors are the same. And you have these mega-funds now that build out big platforms that have hiring funnels or marketing funnels or call it the classical things that people think of as venture helping with. But then you’ve got Placeholder as very founder and human-centric. And then you have other firms that are specifically focused more on the building side as you were talking about, Ori. I think framework does a fair amount of building alongside with the developers or builders that they back. And so just knowing exactly what you’re getting.

And I would say if an investor promises you everything they might give you nothing. And it can be very enticing to hear all these things, but if you hear all these things and there’s not that much substance behind how that’s going to be done, then you might not get anything at all. And one other thing here is the putting together the round process is a little bit like dating where everyone’s on their best behavior, and then once everything is signed it’s a little bit more like marriage where you’re all in it, you’ve signed, there’s no backing out. And so then really at that stage, people will reveal more of their true character. And so there can be a tendency to over promise and under deliver. And so just being cognizant of that also as you’re trying to build your team and really digging into how are you going to be a warrior for me? How are you going to be a mage for me? How are you going to be a healer for me?

Ori (30:16):

Thank you for humoring my RPG nerd analogy. It’s there. I think a sport’s analogy could work equally well for those who think about it that way. It’s definitely rung true for us even post fundraise what you’re saying around the whole dating period. Actually, I find dating to be a useful analogy for many things in building a company. With investors, with potential hires, there is really just this period of getting to know one another wherein some dimensions you might be just as happy as you thought you would be, and in others things, don’t quite pan out. And so I think there actually can be some level of vetting that’s done before you make that commitment as to the one to two things that you really want to get from that relationship.

Chris (31:00):

And I would say talking with other builders and other co-founders is a great way to know what an investor is going to be like at the marriage stage. The other thing and this is a structural thing, typically, venture firms are only considering or doing work on a few deals, on a few open deals at that quote-unquote dating stage at a time, while they have a portfolio of … If they’re more selective like Placeholder, we’ve got a portfolio total of about 30 investments, but some investors have hundreds of investments, right. And so you go from in that dating stage being one of a few to at the marriage stage being one of 30 or one of the hundred or hundreds. And so that also just structurally starts to change the dynamic of interaction in relation in a way that I don’t think people really think about unless you’re in the investor seat.

Ori (32:05):

That’s a really great point. And I think definitely that’s something that we experienced as well. And even now I’ve really appreciated when investors have been very upfront about the amount of time that they would or would not be able to dedicate to us, which often relates to allocation as well. Coming from … Well, never having raised before personally, there’s so much that you need to consider and so much advice that might come your way when you’re starting to do a fundraise that these types of things can feel like small details. But I think there’s sort of different stages of advice to look at depending on how far you are along in the fundraise and when you’re starting to put all the numbers in place. I think that it’s a good time to start thinking about things like how much allocation should you give to each person and what does that mean for … Or each firm rather? And what does that mean for the relationship?

Chris (32:54):

Definitely. And hopefully, people listen to this podcast.

Ori (32:58):

I hope so. So I guess that brings us to number four which is to practice self-care and co-founder care. Fundraising is a grind. And at one point in our raise, I was pretty seriously depressed. And so I’d advise you to lean on your co-founder if you’re lucky enough to have a one because no one understands better than they do. And to also do the same for them.

Chris (33:25):

There’s a lot of depth here that we could go into, but I think that sacrificing for a long time your mental, or physical, or spiritual wellbeing is just never, never worth it. And so I’m glad that Yutaro was able to be your rock and that you guys were able to get through it. Fundraising can … You can feel like a parrot, right. You’re just saying the same thing again, and again, and again, and again. And with those really bad pitches you’re doing it to a bunch of blank faces who will be like “Okay, we’ll put in a million dollars.” And you’re like “They give us no indication of why they’re interested.” Or, even worse, they don’t say anything and they don’t email you back. And you’re like well, why did I just spend that hour on performing that act?

And so I think that fundraising is going to get more humane because the access to invest is opening up, right, and it’s like venture investors for many decades now have controlled this early-stage market and that market is starting to crack and open up. And that’s great because that means more competition and more competition means the investors all behave better and it’s then a less … This is the word coming to my mind, but it’s a less abusive process to the builders and entrepreneurs. And that’s important because again, they are the special sauce and so if they are less abused then they can better create. And so self-care in the fundraising process and all stages of the process. For me, my self-care comes from getting off the screen. I can’t … Screen time actually sucks my energy and then I rejuvenate it offline. But different people are going to have different kinds of self-care.

Ori (35:25):

I love the imagery when you talk about investors behaving better. It’s just very funny to hear that from an investor. But I think everyone does have their own ways of practicing self-care and there can be a lot of pressure to actually not practice self-care, especially in the typical Silicon Valley type of startup environment. But one thing that’s really beautiful I think about the time we’re in now is yes, we have this increased competition. Yes, maybe investors have a bit more opportunity or a reason to behave better, but we also have a more equitable environment thanks to this more remote, and fully global, and increasingly decentralized world where folks are no longer as disadvantaged by maybe where they came from or what languages they originally speak or-

Chris (36:17):


Ori (36:17):

Whether or not they have Silicon Valley connections. So I think that’s really inspiring.

Chris (36:22):

And the information is out there, right. This information that we’re talking about in this podcast is going to be out there. Or, crypto Twitter is all over ripping apart VCs, and much of it very merited. Some of it a little misguided but much of it pretty merited. And so if you go back to early ’90s when people were raising to build the internet, there wasn’t the internet at scale to disseminate this information, right, and so it was locked in pockets. But now this information and the structures to open access are just breaking everything open so it’s not just the financial access it’s the information access to know what is fair and balanced in this capital raising process.

Ori (37:06):

Twitter is really something that we could spend a lot of time talking about.

Chris (37:10):

Twitter is crazy.

Ori (37:11):

It’s not something I ever used before crypto, but now I can see how it’s actually pretty amazing how all these different folks can directly learn from people who used to be inaccessible. Go follow Chris on Twitter. Hear more of his learnings.

Chris (37:27):

And Ori too.

Ori (37:28):

Where we’ll be there projecting our thoughts out into cyberspace and hoping you’ll be listening. But to close today’s podcast, I wanted to ask Chris if there’s any final learnings or advice that you wanted to share with our community and particularly folks who are looking to fundraise in a way that is ultimately more fair?

Chris (37:49):

I would boil it down to … At the private stage when the builder is interacting with the investor, the builder needs to keep in mind that they are the representative for all the stakeholders that are not present at the table. And some investors don’t care about those other stakeholders and some investors do care. But if you as the builder really care and protect the economic and governance rights of those stakeholders, then you will do well by your network over the long run. But it’s very tempting because those stakeholders are not physically present at the table to ignore or diminish them. And so I would really encourage people to think about what we’re building here with these data and coordination machines and to really work to keep in mind all the stakeholders that don’t currently have access to that private negotiation table and to do well by them.

Ori (38:55):

That’s great advice, especially because ultimately these are the folks who will be sustaining your protocol long term, right. It’s a bunch of machines that will hopefully be self-sustaining, but ultimately there’s going to be people who are interacting with those machines and you really better hope that they’re properly incentivized.

Chris (39:16):

And feel connection and gratitude for the protocol.

Ori (39:18):

That’s true. Which again, a whole other topic, but is something that I’ve been incredibly gratified to witness with Orca’s. How many folks just legitimately love Orca?

Chris (39:28):

They love it.

Ori (39:30):

I love it. I love that they love it. We’re still just starting to explore what it means to connect with our community but I think that’s that whole governance process and building community is something that I’m really, really excited to embark upon in the next few years. But for today, I think we’ve gone on probably long enough. And as I’ve mentioned, you can always continue to subscribe to us on Twitter. So for today, we’ll closeout. Thanks so much for sharing your wisdom with us, Chris.

Chris (39:57):

Thanks for having me, Ori.

Ori (39:58):

For everyone else, stay tuned for the next episode. You can check us out on Twitter at Orca_so, or join our Discord or Telegram through the link in the show notes. It’s been a splash.