the meta is changing for vcs vs. community terms. expiring meta - extreme vc bias (terms for single vc / single community member): - max allocation: 5%-10% / 0.001%-0.01% (adv. vc) - entry price: very low / high (adv. vc) - lockup short / short (balanced) upcoming meta - balanced (terms for single vc / single community member): - max allocation: 1%-3% / 0.1%-0.2% (adv. vc but more balanced) - entry price: low / very low (adv. community) - lockup: long / short (adv. community) everyone needs to make money (even vcs), but things must get more balanced. we can't have vcs making obscene amounts with basically zero risk and no long-term incentive alignment, while community members who fuel their returns take all the risk and have a really low ownership ceiling. the reward vcs should get for coming in early, is: a) they get to sign agreements with the project entities protecting their rights b) they have an option for a larger allocation. it can't be the existing 5%-10% that's just insane (this is literally what the large vcs will tell you, their ownership target is 10%, and the minimum is 5%), but there should be an option for the largest early vc backers to get around 1% or 2% (3% is already too much imo). community members should also have the option of getting larger airdrop / sale allocations than what the standard used to be, but it would still be an order of magnitude less than early vcs. but that is where the advantage should end. price can't be insanely low for vcs while community members buy high, that's unfair and effectively treats the community as exit liquidity for vcs. actually, because of the lower allocations, community members even need to get lower prices than vcs imo - but if not than at least be in the same range of price. lower allocations per member also means vcs need to have longer lockups to align for the long term, while community members should have shorter lockups so they can participate in defi, staking etc. i also believe projects should aim for many vc investors with lower allocations each, to make sure there's no disproportionate power over what is supposed to be a decentralized protocol. and that's why i believe direct-to-community allocation must be larger than vc allocation, otherwise the numbers just don't add up. it's a zero sum game, and you either have a balanced approach where everyone enjoys the success, or you siphon value from the og community that you rely on for your success, and give that value to extractive vcs who have disproportionate power.

projects should allocate their communities with more % than they allocated to vcs and that means directly like with an airdrop or similar mechanisms, not through “foundation” allocation vcs don’t trust founders, they make them sign contracts protecting investors’ rights. your early community put their trust in you, and it’s your duty as a founder to make sure they are part of the success of the project.