Seth Levine

From the outside, venture looks like a game of picking “winners”. From the inside, it’s a game of returning the fund. I put together a short overview of the 3 numbers that actually matter for LPs: flop rate, DPI, and why one company must be able to pay back the whole fund.

12

1 Comment

In every economic system I've worked in — traditional finance, venture capital, family offices, even most DAOs — wealth and power are the same thing. More tokens = more votes. More shares = more board seats. More capital = more control. We've accepted this as natural. It's not. It's a design choice. And it's the wrong one. The C3 Alliance separates wealth accumulation from governance participation. Completely. By design. In the token architecture. Here's how it works: COMM (Commons Coin) is your wealth token. It represents your stewardship stake in the cooperative. You earn it. You accumulate it. It appreciates as the cooperative succeeds. You can use it as collateral for VELOC credit lines. At the highest tiers, you get 0% interest on credit backed by your COMM holdings. COMM is your financial reward for contributing to the commons. PPT (Patronage Proof Token) is your governance token. It represents your ongoing contribution to the cooperative — not your historical wealth. PPT is earned through active patronage: completing Impact Offers, participating in Vickrey Auctions, contributing to faction governance. Your PPT weight determines your vote, your influence, and your standing. COMM has zero governance rights. Zero. You can be the wealthiest member of the cooperative and have no more voting power than someone who joined yesterday — if you stopped contributing. Conversely, you can be the most influential governance participant with modest wealth, because your PPT reflects what you're doing now, not what you accumulated in the past. This is not theoretical. This is enforced in the token contracts. COMM tokens carry no governance metadata. PPT tokens carry no wealth transfer rights. They exist on separate rails, with separate contracts, serving separate purposes. Why does this matter? Because every other system I've seen — including most "decentralized" governance tokens — conflates economic success with political power. The result is plutocracy with extra steps. DAOs where whales control governance. Cooperatives where founding members entrench themselves. Family offices where generational wealth compounds into generational control. The C3 Alliance says: earn all you want. Accumulate as much COMM as your contributions warrant. But if you want governance power, you show up. You contribute. You earn it fresh, every cycle. Day 1: SEID — sovereign identity. Day 2: Three-faction governance — structural power balance. Day 3: Dual token path — wealth and power on separate rails. Tomorrow: VELOC — what happens when your reputation becomes better collateral than your property. → C3-Alliance.org #C3Alliance #Tokenomics #CooperativeEconomics #Governance #Web3 #DeFi

2

Odin Dynamics, Inc write-up by Matthew Bernard. The story of how Amir and Jon came together to build something of National importance. It's worth the read. https://lnkd.in/eXq8zySA Tareyton Venture Partners

16

1 Comment

🥾 #bootstrapping as a mindset should be ephemeral, one that requires a deliberate transition away from as a business enters sustained growth Appointing an established auditor is often regarded as a luxury and not part of bootstrapping Audits discipline a business - to be methodical, thorough and deliberate - traits that acquirers often seek in due diligence After all, "What gets inspected, gets respected," Anon We will share the traits of venture businesses sought and respected by MNC acquirers, join us if your business is out of the #bootstrapping mindset #fulfillingpotential #hepmil #oobmil

25

1 Comment

Boards are supposed to help founders. Over the past 19 years, I've watched many trap them instead. As companies scale, many boards turn from insight to oversight and stop doing what founders actually need: Help making big, hard decisions. Early boards tend to be small, the board members are close to the business and highly invested in it. They argue from first principles. They help founders think. Later-stage boards often look more impressive on paper - they have more independent directors, committees and process. Somewhere along the way, collective problem solving gets replaced with oversight. The board shifts from helping the CEO make better decisions to monitoring decisions that have already been made. Strategy discussions get safer, real debate gets rarer and meetings become more about risk management than judgment. This usually coincides with the introduction of more professional board members. For better or worse, they often optimize for governance, optics, and liability management. That’s their job. But it’s not always what the company needs in moments of real uncertainty. Then, CEOs stop using them as thought partners. That’s a problem. So what should founders do? A few principles that help: • Keep the board as small as you can for as long as you can • Add directors for new insight they bring, not what boxes they check • Treat board seats like senior hires, not trophies • Design meetings for debate rather than reporting • Be explicit about when you want input vs approval Good boards should improve decision-making. If your board isn’t making you think harder, it’s probably not doing its job.

79

12 Comments

Most family office principals don’t set out to become the operators of a complex institutional structure. Yet that's often what the role demands. Staffing, governance, vendor oversight, cost management—it compounds quickly. Understanding how to balance what stays in-house with what gets outsourced is foundational work, not a detail to revisit later. This article offers a look at how experienced principals are approaching that question: https://lnkd.in/eXjqWrRe

9

3 Comments